Code Enforcement Hearing - public_hearing

Yeah. Well, we yeah. We still got some people signing in, but

yeah. Are

you picking me up on the mic, though?

I'll say something now or I mean, you can you can? I think that you could It is 01/23/2025. This is the code enforcement hearings for the city of Northport. If you'd please stand and join me for 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.

May be seated. I see we have no public comment cards filled out, only case cards. Approval of minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes of the 10/24/2024 code enforcement hearings? Hearing no corrections, those minutes are approved. K. In a moment, the clerk anyone who is here for a case, the clerk will ask you to stand in a moment and and we'll administer the oath. We go through the procedures. There's basically kinda two types of cases here. There's the kinda what I call everything but the lot clearing case type of case, those are in two parts.

There's a first hearing and second hearing. If you are here for a first hearing, basically, the what happens is the the city will put on their case first. You, then are allowed to ask questions of the staff if you want to. You don't have to. You can just put on your case.

If you, you know, they're they're the fines do not begin until a future date for those types of cases. So if you're here and you admit that you're not in compliance, yeah, we can talk a little bit about the time it will take to bring the property into compliance. And, you know, and I will adjust my order accordingly, to accommodate that time if everyone can agree to it. The second topic hearing is the lot clearing case, and those are just a one, you know, one and done. And, we have some of those on the on the schedule today.

Same type of thing works is the the city staff goes first, then then you get a chance to to basically defend your case. Likewise, city staff has the right to ask you questions, you know, at at the end of your testimony, and then I'll usually just go one more round back to the city, and I'll give the property owner the last word. Just ask that you don't, be repetitive in your testimony. So at this point in time, the clerk will administer the oath. So anyone who's gonna speak today, if you'll stand at this time and take the oath.

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge to help you God? Thank you.

Alright. And and then so that you don't have to sit through the entire docket, we take the cases. For those of you who have shown up, we take them in the order that you sign the green card. So the very first case, this morning is case number 244117. The property owner is Vladimir Ashok, and the property address is 5302 Bayberry Street.

And if the property owner will come to this podium here, and then the the city staff will come to that podium. Also and you'll hear the city staff do this. Usually, the very first words out of their mouth is their name and a statement that they've been sworn, but the property owner can do the same thing, their first words out of their mouth is helpful for the record.

Morning, your honor. I am Louis Serbone, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 24Dash4117 was initially inspected on 10/22/2024. This case addressing the violations of land clearing. Of sorry.

Land clearing of four Dot five dot three d of the ULDC land clearing without permit. This property was, inspected multiple times, most recent on 01/06/2025 with no change. I have been in contact with the, homeowner, the first time I was out there, and I have three photos present as evidence. The photos are true and accurate description of the property located at 5302 Bayberry Street. Sorry about that.

How do I flip it? Is that the right thing to flip? Oops.

There you go.

That one. This image is showing of the land clearing pile in the background there. That is image of me showing the posting. Okay.

So are the number of trees known?

At this time, no, your honor. Alright.

You said you had contact with the with the property owner. Did you have you, been at the site with the property owner?

Yes. I was there when the day of that I presented with the violation and explained to him what I was there for.

Alright. Well, mister Patrick, let let let you get started, and then we'll probably have a little bit more conversation about what you did on the property. So if you'll state your name for the record and state that you've been sworn.

Yeah. My name is Vladimir Peshuk, and I've been sworn.

Alright. So what do you wanna say?

Oh, yeah. That is correct. That the, I did clean up in my I purchased a lot in it was September I purchased it. But when we built our home, a lot of that stuff was already messed up on that property, so I cleaned up around there. I planted grass. I did what I I have pictures if you wanted to see them. I printed them out. Yeah. Yeah. I I never knew there was a a violation of of not doing something like that. I moved up from New York. This is the property that that's mine. You can look at those.

Yeah. Just take a let let him take a look at it and see if you have any objection to coming into the record. Basically, that it says that they're photographs of the property.

We've I've I have a bunch of trees that we planted there, like Let

me ask

you a question. Do you is your house adjacent to this property?

Our house is not adjacent to that property.

Okay. There's no.

But the picture that he did show with the car after I spoke with him, and he said that, no. You're not allowed to do that. So I did plant a grass all there, and I planted trees so it's, as green you could see it from the picture I printed. But I I was never aware of I would be in any violation until he informed me of that when we moved down here. I just knew I I mean, I had my neighbors. I have pictures of neighbors having, like, semi trucks parked.

I didn't know if I would park my car, would be in any kind of

big violations, but these are some neighbors that have and this one too.

Let him let him take a look at it first and see if he had an injection.

I didn't know I would be in, you know, trouble doing that, but I apologize.

Ask you this. Have did you did you have any discussions about how many trees were removed?

He asked me about how many trees were removed. I did have one tree that was a dead tree. I removed my kids' play out there, and I had a branch fall down. I did have one tree that I did remove that was compromised by being dead. That's all I did. But everything else is there. I didn't remove anything else. Objection. There's nothing.

Alright. So here's the way, you know, it it here's the constraints that are upon me. Let me put it that way. Okay. So if if the number of trees can be determined, then there's a formula for it based to to calculate the fine.

If the number of trees is unknown, then it's based upon the size of the lot, and it's just a it's just you know, for a 10,000 square foot lot, it's, I think, $15,000 is what it is. So it's a you know, that's what it is. So that's why I keep asking this question about, you know, the number of trees. Now sometimes, you know, that there is a meeting and and it this looks like the stumps have been removed. Right? So it's cut sometimes you can tell which trees were removed because there's still stumps in the ground. But as I looked at those photographs, it looks like evidence of the stumps have been removed. Is that correct?

No. I didn't, I didn't remove, I had a tree that was dead. That's it. That's the only thing I had. You're saying stumps. I mean, multiple stumps. I didn't have any

multiple stumps. You you cut down one tree? Yes.

Okay. Which was dead. I had a branch fall down. My kids play out there. I I didn't want them to get hit in the head with it. I don't know what to tell you, but I I didn't know it would be in violation. I didn't know that. I Alright. It's my I mean, I lived in New York. I could go in the backyard, cut all the trees down. I didn't know. Like like I said, we moved in. We had our occupancy in September 10. And

Okay. So you've owned this for approximately, probably, four four or five months then. Right? Maybe less. I think we with the home? No. I'm talking about this lot. How long have you owned this

lot? The property, I think we got

it got signed over to us, I think, October.

Of last year? This year.

Oh, yeah. Sorry. 2024.

I apologize. Yeah. And and so what you did to it was after I mean, the photos that you sent with the sod and so forth, that was all done by you. None of

that I put the sod in. Yeah. Because a lot of it was messed up during the construction of the home. We got occupancy in September. So we bought the property, and I just cleaned up after what they did because they parked trailers equipment on there before when they were doing

the construction. So Okay. So do you have any evidence or testimony as to the number of trees?

I do not, your honor. I did speak to the arborist, and the arborist said they were not able to determine what was there.

Well, let me ask you this. Other than I guess, you're saying there's still a stump there from where you removed this disease tree.

I don't believe there is because

I I did get rid of, like You got rid

of that stuff and then I Okay. Planted grass.

Alright. Did you see evidence of any other stumps that were there?

Did not, your honor. Okay.

Okay. Here's another thing we do on these cases sometimes. Did that do you have the GIS aerial that we where we can go back and see the sort of, you know, what it looked like Yep.

I can

year or two ago versus what it looks like now.

This one right here.

Yeah. Correct. Yeah.

Okay. And that is from what year? And sometimes it tells you down at the bottom.

I'm not seeing it. One second. Oops. Nope. How do I get it to figure it out?

So this shows that there, yeah, there's some area of this lot that looks like it just has nothing but ground cover on it. It's either Correct. Just grass or or some other type of ground cover. And so and I'd like both of you to to to describe to me what's different now versus what I'm looking at here, and I'll let I'll let you go first.

That looks pretty much the same as it is now. I just it I put planted a lot more grass, in there because there there was, like, gravel and, sand left over. So I spread it around, and I planted grass over when I got the property. Okay.

So what they're going back now, they're gonna show the same image from looks like you're trying to go back to 2023.

Trying to find the pictures here. Your honor, if I may

Sure.

There he is.

Kevin Roducci, the manager for the code enforcement division, I have been sworn if we could possibly two things. And I was I was talking to someone, so I might have missed this.

Right.

Is it possible that property owner has a picture of the tree that he took down or evidence of the tree that he took down at all?

I don't think I took pictures of that.

Okay. The other thing I was gonna ask you, sir, is that could you guesstimate so, basically, when trees are removed, it's a formula used. It's a formula based on breast height of the tree. So, like, at your chest level, the circumference of that tree, you know what that could you guesstimate what that was? How how you took a tape measure at chest height and and wrapped it around the tree. What

It was not a big tree. I it was not a big tree. I don't know how Like

a 12 inch diameter tree maybe? Yes.

Maybe. Yeah. I don't know.

Because I'm

not so sure that we should, in this case, maybe use the unknown

Oh, yeah. I'm I'm definitely leaning there too. Yeah. I mean, yeah. So let me see what let me just do a little math here.

Hold on. Yeah. So and I'm not making a decision yet, but, right now, what again, we're still trying to I want you to understand one other thing, and that is that if there is a disease tree, there is a process for obtaining a permit to get rid of the disease tree. Obviously, the tree's gone now, but there's no way of, you know, determining after the fact, you know, was it disease, was it not disease, what kind of disease it had, that type of thing. So, you know, I am leaning towards this idea of not going with the unknown.

Again, it looks like probably a prior owner looks like did some of this clearing. You then remove this other tree, and that's kinda where we're at at this point in time as a city. Is that consistent? My are my thoughts can okay.

So just so you know, searches for future and everyone in the room, if you're gonna remove a tree on your property, we ask you to call the city. We will send somebody out for free to help you depending on what your reason is for removing tree. If it's dead, you don't need a permit. We'll just sign off on it. If it's not dead, the city will attempt to, afford you some options of maybe keeping it or in lieu of taking that tree down, maybe planting others or whatever, some sort of mitigation.

Okay.

Well, you don't have that today because the tree was removed. You're stating that it's dead. At this time, there's probably no way for us to determine that. So now that's where we are today. That's why it ended up here.

And I understand. Like, in in I for giving me an information, I will come in, and I will ask you to do the right thing.

Happens a lot that people don't know. Unfortunately, we still have rules that we have to follow even if they didn't know the property owner. Part of it is education, but it's after the fact, and then it turns into like I said, that's why we're here today. So we'll see how it shakes out. Yeah.

Okay. I think I've heard enough of it, but I'll give you the last word if there's anything else you wanna say that's not repetitive.

No. I I mean Okay. Thank you for your time.

Okay. So, yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna relying upon the testimony of the property owner, I am going to, make a determination that one tree was removed, Again, based upon he kinda showed, you know, visually with his hands, I'm going to, make a determination that the approximate diameter of that tree at chest height was eight inches, and then the fine is a $100 per, you know, inch of diameter, so that's an $800 fine. I'm imposing an $800 fine today. Thank you. Thank you.

Sorry.

If you have questions about have

a quest because I did get two letters for another I think was it another,

court? Is there another violation on the same piece

of property? There was one for the the car, but that got closed. There should

be some rules in compliance. Yes. Yeah. You you don't have to worry about that one. Okay. Alright. Okay. Next case is case number 241679. The property owner is John Edward Schlar Schlar, and the property address is 1733 Attachau Avenue, and this is a continued case.

Morning, your honor. I'm Louis Sabone, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 24Dash1679 was found in violation violation at the date of 08/2224 hearing. This service nope. Sorry. There has been no changes to the property, and I request that you sign the order to assess fine.

Okay. So this is a continued case, but a continued second hearing case. Alright. Okay. Got it. Alright. So is your name for the record, and you've been sworn?

My name is John Schiller, and I've been sworn.

Alright. So do you understand where we're at right now? This is a continuation of the second hearing case. And if as I recall, this is a partially completed house. Is that

Yes. It has some it has blocking up and, like, one window. I can pull up oh, wrong thing. I can pull up some pictures for you, your honor.

Okay. And then and, again, I don't remember all the details, but, and and staff helped me out. It was was the continuation because the the the corrective action here, I guess, are one of two ways to correct this. One is a permit is revived or obtained to complete the house or a demolition permit is obtained and the and the property the the improvements are taken down. So is that what the continuation was about? Was it to get that you to give you time to do one or the other?

Yes, your honor. It was to for him to obtain

Alright. So now I'll leave now so tell me what happened.

Okay. So I decided to go the the to get the new permit, and I applied it for the last I mean, on the last year. So it's waiting for the it's on a review.

Okay. Can someone pull up the permitting page to see where what the status of the permit is? Yeah.

I have a number. Okay.

Okay. He's got the number.

He's got the number. So just hold on a second till he gets to the right page.

Okay. Permit number?

PCZC2400883. Yeah. It had been

an yeah. So is that showing it's issued, and it's got a new expiration date? Or

Yeah. The the expiration date is 05/1425. No. Yeah. It has not been issued. I do

see a routing view. The expiration date of the original one, the original, permit. Okay. Now, again, I don't know enough about what how this works, but would it show a pending application or an either an application are you trying to renew it, or or are you trying to get a new permit?

This is new permit.

Okay. And that's because the contract is this did the contractor just leave on this one?

Or No. There's no no contractor in

the Okay.

It was it was the permit was pulled under On my name. Under your name. Okay. So you're just trying to get it

To finish the house. Yeah.

It does say at the top of the screen, your honor, we're routed for review as of 01/14.

Okay. Alright. Well okay. So we got a couple options here. One is to just have a short continuance so that you can have some you can go down with him and get some idea of what the status is. And if the you know, if they're working it, then, yeah, we'd probably continue it again would be the the answer. So, and what we can do is cases that are your cases, we'll just pass over and come back to them during that time. Is that does that seem workable to both sides? Let's take a short

What are trying to plan? Because we have it around the

Oh, okay. So yeah. I mean, what is can you tell what they're waiting for?

It was just submitted on the thirteenth.

Okay. You got the application history on Oh, here we go. Okay. Alright. So okay. So is it so it was submitted on the thirteenth of this month.

Where?

Oh, application history.

There we go. Okay.

Interesting. There it goes.

Okay. Wait. Okay. Right. Okay. Right. Right. Okay. So okay. So he he has taken some action Granted, you know, pretty close to pretty close to this airing, but there is you know, there something is in process here.

So so let me ask you this. I mean, we're now you know, we're gonna have these every single month until July. Is there any objection that can oh, let me ask you this. I don't know enough about this process. Is it, or maybe they've told you, you think you'll have a permit by February 27?

They didn't they don't know when it's gonna come.

Alright. Well, I mean, if nothing else, we can at least get a status report at that point in time. Here's what I would ask, though, is that, if you don't have the permit in hand by the February 27, that you go downstairs before you come to the hearing and you really have the have the information about what's missing, what's, you know, what they're still waiting on. And I see mister Roducci coming down before I before I make a decision here. Is there something you wanna say?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Kevin Rudducci, manager for the department division. Back on the record. If I may have ask a few questions.

Sure.

So, sir, on your on your application for, I believe, it's the CZC, did you submit the engineer drawings, the septic plan, and all of that with the with all your paperwork as of the date of what was the date? Thirteenth. Do you know? I'll phrase it this way. What did you submit to the city in terms of applying for a permit?

Oh, I think all they require submitted. Yeah. We did. We worked with a health department with the septic, and it should be there.

Was it submitted with the paperwork to the city on the sixteenth or

whatever? '13.

That that's what I'm trying to find out. Because if not, I have a different recommendation now. So I'm just trying to find out where what was actually submitted.

That I don't know because the somebody submitted on my behalf who was more of the paperwork. So, they said everything is there. Kobe was waiting for some more paper, and now everything's there. That's what I know.

Well, now let now let me go back and to the first suggestion I had, which is a short recess on this case to allow both parties to go down and actually find out exactly what the status is. Are you are you receptive to that versus Not while But I was about ready just to continue with the

case, though?

Initial. Initial was 82224.

Oh, wait. That was the violation the first violation. Hang on a sec. Okay. So this this the the property owner currently was not the property owner. I believe this property started, like, in 02/2006, maybe even earlier. 04/15/2024. Several different times. Obviously, there's a picture that we presented are pretty much the way it's looked. Right. We right now, may we, for a while, we're cutting the grass there and building different property owners, even maybe this property owner. I'm not sure of that. But in general, my recommendation was gonna be today to find the property owner in violation. Maybe give him to March and see where he is with this permit because if it's not moving along at a pace that it needs to be to get going, it's really not moving along. That that would be my recommendation.

I personally would like to have a little more information, and so I I'm gonna lean towards the again, we're you know, you gotta come back today. You know? I'm gonna let both sides go down, find out exactly what the status is, and then report back because I think I can make a better decision once I once I really know that versus what I can just see from the screen.

So I have

we will just yeah. You know, what we'll do is we'll

keep going with the other cases. More cases. And, and we'll notice when you come back up here, and then we'll call you back up once you've done that. So any objection to that?

No. That's fine. Okay. Can we just find what's the next case gonna be? Because either

Oh, yeah. So yeah. So, yeah, this is, we've got two that are that are together, and they are both well, one's a JP case and one's an LC case. So so I'm LC. You Okay.

Help him on this. Right?

So take him down to planning Yep. And see what's going on, then both of you come back up, and we'll

see what's Alright. Going

Yes, sir. Thank you. Alright. He's he's gonna bring you down to planning, sir, and see where you are in that process. Mhmm. And then we'll have a better his honor will have a better idea of what's

going Okay. So the next case yeah. We'll we'll see you in just a a little bit. Next case is case number 242427. The property owner is Astero Development Partners LP. The property address is 2440 Bronco Lane. This is a second hearing case. Now I remember that these are this this is the the properties where the contractor defaulted and went away. Is that correct? Okay.

Yes.

You may begin.

Alright. Morning. I'm Josh Preston, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 24Dash2427 was found in violation on 10/24/2024 hearing. There have been no changes in the on the to the property, and I request you sign the orders assessing the fine, please. Okay. Property has been inspected on multiple occasions most recently as 01/21/2025. I have one photo to add to the record. The photos are a true and accurate description of the property located at 2440 Bronco Lane.

Alright. And so the only thing that would've brought this I mean, the only thing that needed to be done to bring this into compliance is install the silk screens. Correct? Yes, sir. Alright. You may okay. Name for the record?

Reed's Weiser. I've been sworn. Alright. Yeah. They haven't installed the silk Okay.

Well, you know what? I don't really have much choice here. I Okay. I know you So I will I will sign the order which assesses the fine. Alright. Now I think is someone covering on the next one? Okay. Yes, sir. So we can go forward with that. So you stay put. The next case is case number 243798. The property owner again is Astero Development Partners, and the property address is 2487, Flagami Lane.

Good morning, your honor. I'm Gavin O'Neill, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn. Your honor, you said this was the second hearing or the first hearing?

This is the first hearing.

Good to go, your honor. This case is addressing the violation of an unsafe condition of code three zero four point one point one of the IPMC code. The property is is is uncovered, and that is what's that? It's this one. Uncovered and starting to weather and splinter in the second code.

On this case is a permit expired for the permit of validity 105.40.10.1 of the FPC. Permit number is 21Dash10347 for a single family residence home. Property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 01/21/2025. I have had contact with the property owner. I have five photos to present as evidence.

Alright. There you go. You're on. Alright. Okay.

So, usually, I just let you start talking, but let me kind of state the obvious here. So unlike that last case, which is, you know, the fines that will be associated with that, I would characterize as the cost of doing business. The fines that can be associated with these violations is kinda what I would call the death penalty. You know? It's it's it's gonna basically the lien is going to pretty rapidly exceed the value of what's there.

So I don't know if you have and, again, I know you're kind of an agent. You're you know, I forget you're an employee or yeah. Had has there been discussion about this one as far as are you just gonna let this one go?

No. No. There's a we have actually are in discussion finally with a builder looking

Excuse me, sir. Can you just state your name and that you've been sworn in peace since you haven't spoke yet?

Oh, he yeah. He spoke on the

other but, yeah, the different case. So speak again for for

this sworn. Right. Okay. So, yes, we are in actually real discussions now with somebody to, obviously, they're gonna have to pop the top off of that one and redo the trusses and all that. But, yeah, we're actually in discussions now, to unload all of our North Port inventory and and get it moving forward.

Alright. So now let me ask you this. What what do you think the timetable is for that? And by and and understand The consummate oh, sorry.

Go ahead.

Well yeah. Well okay. So there's three violations going on here with this particular piece of property. Right. And and and this to give you an idea, just so we're talking about order of magnitude of what the fines are so that you know? Yeah. The first one for the self screen, that again, that's kinda what I call cost of doing business. That's $25 a day with a maximum of $2,000. The Inspired building code, which that gets fixed pretty easily and quickly because all you need is a new building permit. You know?

And but that's $50 a day with a maximum of $5,000. That is, again, you know, kinda cost of doing business. It's the unsafe structure that is the big one because the the the fine for that is $250 a day with no maximum. That's what I'm saying. That is so that's why I'm asking this question.

And and I have a question for the city too, and that is what, I mean, what how how is that brought into compliance? Is it, okay. We've got a new building code, and now we've done some things to make the structure safer, it's still not it's still a partially completed structure. I'm trying to understand, like, what does compliance to that violation look like?

Yes, your honor. I've had similar houses, with the same exact issue. So for the roof, they could be tarped because it's an unfinished roof as well as getting plywood in both all windows and entrances. Okay. That would make it a more safe structure.

So that you know kinda what what's going through in my mind right now. My my inclination is to find violations, but as you as I said at the beginning of the hearings, you know, I set a date for compliance, and the fines don't begin until that that date that I set. That's why I asked the question

Yeah.

Of where what your timetable was because, you know, if if you're if if there actually is a solution that's in the works, I'm willing to work with you to get to that solution. So so so now that you kinda understand Mhmm. Or, you know, what what's going through my mind, tell me a little bit about what your best guess of what you think the timetable is.

Well, you know, to consummate the, the sale of these properties, essentially, another development company is going to come in and just buy them. Okay. To consummate a sale of, I don't know, it's like 15 to 18 of these, that takes thirty to sixty days for everybody to work out the numbers and what have you. So call that thirty to sixty days. Renewing the permits, that's thirty days ish, give or take, depending on if the septic needs to be the health department because that could be any number,

quite frankly.

You know, I would say construction could theoretically begin, like, to tear because all that needs to be torn off the top and redone. No doubt about that. I mean, that could begin as quickly as four months as long as six.

Okay. You mister Roducci, do you wanna come down? Because I'm gonna ask him a question, and then you're gonna probably come down. So

Your honor, I'd like to restate for the record that this was initially inspected in 09/09/2024.

I so, again, I wanna tell you kinda what's going through my mind. What's going through my mind is are we gonna have compliance with the unsafe structure in, you know, something like fifty days? We're probably not gonna have that, but we could have compliance with the first two, potentially, either at fifty days or seventy five days. So my inclination is to find a violation on all three of these, give probably the seventy five day time frame knowing that the last one probably is not gonna be brought into compliance by that point in time. But if there's a new owner, they've they've brought the first two into compliance.

They're in the process of getting the third one in compliance. Expired And at that point in time, you know, maybe we continue for another month or two to get that final part of it done. I mean, that's what's going through my mind, so I kinda like to know what the city's thoughts are on that.

Well, to be there's no way, sir, you can get the the windows and doors boarded up.

So what he's saying is they're not gonna do it. They're they, as the developer, they're walking away from all of these properties, that they're selling to a subsequent developer. Is that what

I'm hearing?

50¢ on the dollar. We're already

taking So it's gonna be a different it's gonna be a different person standing here seventy five days from now.

And my and the city's contention is to find them in violation immediately, and it's new owner. I'll deal with it. Because I'm gonna be honest with you. I'm done dealing with it. I I feel these phone calls from these neighbors every day

Okay.

About these properties. I'm sorry that they went under. I'm sorry that they can't fix it, but we have to do something because I have to answer to the people that pay my salary. So my my, opinion of it is find them in full violation to the max and either the

new Well, that that I was gonna do that. That that's is the the question is the is the the time for compliance.

Right. But that's all. There's no guarantee in that. There's no guarantee that the the the new the person that or the company that's interested in these will even come through, and, that's not a decision I'm willing to bet on, to be honest with you. I don't believe this company has a great track record with the city. We're cutting our losses. We'd like it found in violation today. And if they buy it, they buy the problems, and they'll fix it. We're done with it. With all due respect.

Well okay. So let me ask so what he's asking for is essentially and as I said, I was I wasn't gonna waiver on the fines. The fines were gonna be the maximum fines and the running out. I think what what I'm hearing is no no more than the fifty days, which which me puts us at the March 27 hearing. And and I guess if if the if there's a new owner by then and the new owner comes and pleads mercy, then I guess, you know, we'll we'll consider yeah.

We'll deal with that then. But if if no if no owner shows up or you don't show up again, then, you know, the fines start running Understood. At as of that point in time. So that

We we

for a few $100, if they could get if somebody could get it and the city's not gonna do it, not our it's not our property. Just get it boarded up. We can work where we're on the permit. The permit isn't that big of a deal at that point because there's no work going on here. But if they could just get it boarded up, clean it

up a little So it's

an easier sell to the public than just to leave it like that and forever how long that's gonna take.

Yeah. So if if if in your negotiations with your buyer but, you know, what I just heard there is that, again, just getting all the openings boarded so that people can't get access to it. Yeah. That, again, if when you come back in March, that would that's the kind of thing the city start would like to look at. I see the assistant city attorney here too, and I okay. Go ahead.

Caitlin Coughlin, assistant city attorney. I haven't sworn. I think the biggest issue for the city is the liability

Yeah.

As far as putting the compliance out farther, we're dealing with an unsafe structure that potentially, you know, could either a collapse and or could have somebody inhabiting that that we maybe don't want to, and then that puts more liability on the city. But that would be the major concern from at least the city attorney's

office perspective. Again, I yeah. The twenty five day is a pretty short clock. I I was are you is the city asking for the twenty five days Absolutely. Instead of the fifty days? Correct.

You're okay with that part?

It's not good.

Again, when did the case start?

Back in September. September.

And and, again, your honor, may I remind you respectfully, sir, this is not the first case with this company.

I know. Others. I I I remember.

They can't come through, but somebody's gotta do something.

I'm just and and, again, I'm thinking out loud here. So and I and I don't know what the city's experience has been with have you seen white knights come in and fix a problem like this? And and so it if if I if I go to twenty five days and we have the second hearing and boom, it's done, and it's out of my hands at that point in time, I mean, I if the city is saying, look. They're okay with that new owner going to city commission and asking for relief instead of coming back here. I mean, I again, I'm okay with that.

I just but that's the reality of if there is a white knight in the wings, that's what they're gonna have to do if we go with the shortest time frame.

I understand that. But, again, there's no guarantees that that's even gonna

I understand that too. Yeah.

Yeah. Economic times right now are a little uncertain. The housing and building has slowed down here somewhat. I'm not saying that's not gonna go through, but I I doubt in ninety days, there's gonna be a new owner, that property's gonna be corrected. I sincerely doubt that for whatever for just a whole host of reasons. Well It's multiple properties that are being bought. There's different things that have to go on. It's really not our our problem.

Because, I mean, the other aspect of it is is once once the order is signed that assesses the fines and the liens are beginning, then the city then all of a sudden has some authority to go do something to correct this situation. Right?

I'll have to discuss that with the building official. Obviously, that takes, monies, and, you know, that's a process in itself. And that

But at least you have a lien that is, you know, hopefully I mean, I think it's a super priority lien that isn't that? Yeah. That that helps you, you know, pay for whatever you're you gotta do to to bring it into a safe condition. Okay.

Well, essentially, it would be passed on to the whatever the present property owner is. So either way, we're asking for the minimal. We're asking for that building to be

Right.

All the entrances to be, you know, locked off with plywood. I don't think that's that big of a reach. If that can't be done, especially since the time that we've allowed for that to happen

Right.

Nothing's been done. So our contention just to have the fine start Yeah.

So okay. So you you hear what they're asking? Mhmm. Alright.

Can you make that happen, sir? I just want an answer.

When you say board up the structure Why about the garage door into the house that you want the the full, like, where the big garage door?

Yes, sir.

So, like, build a two by four wall there.

No. Just Cover with plywood. Just board up all the entry points that you see there, all the doors and windows.

Like like actual big garage door.

Yes, sir.

And we've, yeah, we've seen that where with plywood, they've they've covered the openings so that you

can't get in. All I can do is ask. You know?

Okay. Right. Well I appreciate it.

I I I know you're in a bad spot, but Right.

We're in

a bad spot too, And I get calls on these every day. We gotta do something.

I'll give you the last word if there's anything else you wanna say. I'll give you the last word if there's anything else you wanna say.

Hopefully, this nightmare is coming to an end soon.

Alright. Alright. Okay. I heard the city. Thank you, sir.

And and and so what I am gonna do is I am gonna find that there's a violation of section 33 dash seven c three of the land development code for no silt screens, A fine of $25 a day with a maximum of $2,000 will commence on, February 18 if not brought into compliance by February 17. I find that there's a violation of section one zero five point four point one point one of the Florida building code for the expired building permit. A fine of $50 a day with a maximum $5,000 will commence on 02/18/2025 if not brought into compliance by 02/17/2025. And I find that there is a violation of the Norfolk City code forty two eighty five as it incorporates this, this unsafe, you know, structure from, I think it's from Florida statute three zero four point one, and a fine of $250 a day with no maximum will commence on 02/18/2025. It's not brought into compliance by 02/17/2025.

Thank you.

Thank you, your honor. Thanks.

Alright. Now we'll I see yeah. We'll go back to case number 241679, which is, John Edward Schwar, and the property address is 1733 Cattachau Avenue. And I'll let whoever wants to talk first go. I don't care. Did did I sit?

Yeah. Yes, your honor. Okay. So I went down there, and I spoke with the plans review. It has been submitted. It will be reviewed again and released on the thirteenth, but as of right now, it has already failed for the fact of the year is no slope on the review showing what he's gonna do for grade to create the slope on the back of the property. So he would have to submit something showing what he's gonna do to raise the grade. That way there will be no drainage issue in the back of the property.

Okay. So here's here's what our options are on this. I either I I probably would not sign the order as proposed because that would back the fines up to a date prior to today. I could modify that the and say, I'm gonna sign an order that initiates the fines at some point in time in the future, enough time for him to do that, or we continue it till next month. Does the city have a preference of what I do here? And I see the assistant city attorney walk oh oh, she's walking outside. Okay. Alright.

I have no preference as long as he can get it done before the '20

like this is kind of a minor Yeah. You know, thing that that needs to be done. So I think yeah. My inclination is I think the simplest thing to do is just continue this till next month, which is gonna be, 02/27/2025. We'll continue that case till then. Hopefully, you'll have a building permit in place prior to that. If you just stay in contact with the code enforcement officer, as soon as you have that permit in hand, let them know because then you'll be brought in compliance. You don't have to come back next month. Alright? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, hon. Alright. That is, I think, everyone who did did someone come in late to sign a green card?

Okay. Alright. Are are you gonna stick around for all the the regular ones without people? Because I the city attorney. Yeah.

Oh, yeah. To stick around? Okay. This is gonna go pretty fast, but there's just one thing I wanna talk to you about. But we can do that under at the very end of the of the hearings. Okay. Now we're gonna, just go into first hearings case number 243342. The property owner is SB and G Limited Holdings LLC, and the property address is 4438 Hartsbrook Avenue.

Morning, your honor. I'm Gavin O'Neil, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 243342 was initially inspected on 07/30/2024. This case is addressing the violations of 42 Dash 23, Northport City code accumulation of debris, 59 dash one c one, Northport City code of prohibited parking, and 70 dash 56 h of the Northport City code house house numbers. The property was in inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 01/22/2025 around 11:00.

I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today. I have three photos. The president's evidence, the photos are true accurate depiction of the property located at 4438 Hartsook Avenue. Yonder, this is the prohibited parking is in regards to the the all three trailers that are currently parked

Right.

In on an unimproved surface. The debris is in regards to all the palm trees. They've had these palms since July. They have yet to remove them from any of the three trailers.

And then that view also, I can see the no numbers.

That's happening.

Yeah. Where they would normally be. Alright. Anything else? No, your honor.

Alright. I find that there's a violation of chapter 70 dash five six in North Port City code for failure to have assigned numbers visible from the the street. Fine of $10 a day with a maximum $1,000 will commence on 02/18/2025. If not brought into compliance by 02/17/2025, I find that there's a violation of 59 dash one c one of the Northport City code for that these parking violations with these these trailers that, are are parked on the property. Fine at $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on 02/18/2025, if not brought into compliance by 02/17/2025.

And I find that there's a violation of chapter 42 dash 23 of the North North Port City code for this accumulation of debris. The palm trees, a fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence, on 02/18/2025, if not brought into compliance by 02/17/2025. Next case is twenty four thirty three ninety six. The property owner is Arthur Ferreira Alves, and the property address is 3727 Coquina Avenue. Coquina? This is a GO case?

It your honor, that case was brought into compliance about

two months ago.

Alright. So that's in compliance. Next case is case number 243667. The property owner is Marzan Constructions LLC. The property address is 3808 Albatross Lane.

Good morning. I'm Josh Preston, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 24Dash3667 was initially inspected on 08/26/2024. This case is addressing the violation of international property maintenance code three zero two point four pertaining to weeds, premises of the exterior of the property shall be free of weeds and plant growth in excess of 12 inches. Noxious weed shall be prohibited.

The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 01/21/2025. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to this case today. I have one photo to, show us a present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate description of the property located at 3808 Albacross Lane.

Alright. I'm gonna find that there is a violation of the city code that incorporates this international property maintenance code section three zero two point four for the weeds in excess of the, 12 inches. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum $1,000 will, commence on 02/18/2025, if not brought into compliance by 02/17/2025. Next case is case number 243870. The property owner is, Palladio Development LLC. The property address is 4251 Bellingham Lane.

Okay. Again, my name is Josh Preston, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 24Dash3870 was initially inspected on 09/23/2024. The address, I'm sorry. The case in this, is addressing the violation of section one zero five point four point one point one for the building code, permit, single family residence building permit number 22Dash9026, expired on 07/17/2024, and ULBC 33Dash7D1C regarding the piling and storage of debris.

Overall, uncapped appearance of this site with debris overflowing from the dumpster and encroaching in the right of way. Property was has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 01/21/2025. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today. I have one photo to present as evidence. The photo is a true and accurate description of the property located at 4251 Bellingham Lane.

Alright. Gotta find that there's a violation in section one zero five point four point one point one of the Florida building code for this permit, which expired last year in July. Fine of $50 a day with a maximum of $5,000 will commence on 02/18/2025, if not brought into compliance by 02/17/2025. And I find a violation of section 33 dash seven d one c of the unified land development code for all this debris, storage, construction materials, etcetera, Fine of $25 a day with a maximum of $2,000 will commence on 02/18/2025 if not brought into compliance by 02/17/2025. The next case, 243963 is in compliance.

Just wanna read that into the record. The next case is case number 244004. The property owner is, Vasily and Lunilla and Sergey Grudanski, and the property address is 4418 Shrimp Lane.

Morning, your honor. I'm Louis Sabone, code enforcement inspector for the city of Norfolk, and I have been sworn. Case number 24Dash4004 was initially inspected on 10/04/2024. This case is addressing the violation of 59 dash two, the Northport city code. Damage to right of way, The underground culvert pipe has been uprooted due to driving over it.

The property was last inspected or the property has been inspected on multiple occasions. Most recently, on 01/21/2025, no changes had made of since then. I have not been in contact with the property owner. I have seven photos to present at evidence. The photos are a true and accurate description of the proper property located at 4418 Shrimp Lane.

Sorry. Wrong one. This one showing the tire marks going through the property.

Alright. I'm gonna find that there is a violation of section 59 dash two of the city code for damage to this public right away, this culvert that's been damaged and is impeding the storm water flow. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on 02/18/2025, not brought into compliance by 02/17/2025. Moving on to second hearings. First one is case number 2411 of did I miss one?

Oh, okay. Oh, yeah. So this is just real quick. So I were you were you involved at all with the ZBA hearing that was in December on Okay. Okay.

Well, this is kind of a broader, you know, question, basically. So I, you know, I was on deck for that hearing. I didn't I didn't end up having to do it. But as I was as I was looking at it, there's a specific statute, and I could I can get it for you, but that says if someone is challenging a development order and their basis of their challenge is, is, that is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, which that one basically was, it says the person who challenges, if the city has a process in place, it goes through that process. If not, then they they go straight to circuit court.

The city has a process, though, and this is the this is the question for the city attorney's office is, I don't know. I think there's another ordinance that maybe the city has to pass that because it's not really ZBA. It's this it's this hearing officer that, quite honestly, has powers beyond what ZBA had. I mean, it and and it I think it would help those kind of cases. I think you could kinda grab the case earlier on and deal with some preliminary issues so you're not trying to deal with everything on one day.

I mean, it actually there's discovery is allowed, but but the the hearing officer has to permit it. You know? And the hearing officer can issue subpoenas, which, yeah, I've never done that. I'm I'm working on that

code right now.

Okay. Alright. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, so we're on the same wavelength here. Yeah. It seems like there was a gap there. And to be quite honest, I mean, I was kinda wondering why the the city wasn't arguing, hey. You should have just gone straight to circuit court because we didn't really have that process in place.

And I wasn't there for that, but I I I didn't agree with

that. And I Okay.

Have a discussion. I do know that on my desk right now, at least, is in the powers and some discovery. Okay.

Yeah. Because my if if we ever got one of those again and I was doing that, my I think what would work best is to have, like, a case management, like, as soon right after the thing is filed, get all those preliminary things resolved. And then when you have the hearing, all you're doing is having the hearing. You're not yet trying to deal with you know, they were they were trying to deal with, like, six different things all at one time.

Yeah. Think I know.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Alright. We're all okay. Thanks. Alright. Second hearing. Case number 241184. The property owner is Alan and Kathleen Quackenbush, and the property address is 3326 Tusket Avenue.

Okay.

I'm Josh Preston, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 24Dash1184 was found in violation on 10/24/2024 hearing. There have been no changes to the property, and I request that you sign the order assessing the fine.

Alright. I will sign the order. Next is case number 242469. Property, owner is Sierra Lane Capital, care of Acquora Loan sir services. The property address is 2690, Nangagas Street. Why? That's an interesting name for streets in this city.

Morning, your honor. I'm Gavin O'Neil, code and force inspector for the city of Northport. I have been sworn. There has been no changes to the property, and I request that you sign the order assessing the fine.

Okay. I will sign the order assessing the fine. Next is case number 242513. Property owner is Matthew White. The property address is 2210 McKeag Street.

Yes. Good morning, your honor. Louis Sabone, code enforcement inspector for the city of Norfolk and had been sworn. Case number 24Dash2513 was initially inspected on 06/07/2024. The case addressing the violation of residential swimming bearer requirement, four fifty dash one dash 17 to FBC. The property has been inspected in multiple occasions, most recently on 01/14/2025, not been in contact with the owner. And I have one photo to present as evidence. The photos are true and accurate descriptions of the property located at 2210 Matic Street.

This is second hearing.

This is second hearing?

Yeah.

Oh, I am sorry. I did not know that. Yeah. I took over the case. It is still the same, your honor.

Still the same. Even the waste even

the waste containers are still not stored in the right spot?

Yes, sir.

Okay. I will sign the order assessing the fine then. Next is case number 242722. The property owner is Dwellwell Inc, and the property address is 6145 Deming Avenue. K.

I'm Josh Preston, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been for have been sworn. Case number 24Dash2722 was filed in violation on 10/24/2024 hearing. There have been no changes to the property, and I request that you send the order assessing the fine.

Yeah. I will sign the order assessing the fine. Moving on to general business, the calendar. And I think the only, the change was, I think, their original draft calendar had our what I call our November hearings, which are held in early December on December 5. But I guess because of the scheduling conflict with this room, it's been requested to move that to 12/11/2025.

So if there's no objection to that, the calendar will be amended to show that the diss that instead of December 5, that those hearings will be held on December 11. Alright. And I see no other public comment cards signed. So it is 10:09AM, and we are adjourned.

Thank you.