Code Enforcement Hearing - public_hearing

order the meeting of code enforcement for the city of Norfolk. It is 9.04 AM. If everyone could please stand and join me in 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. You all may be seated. We have one public comment card filled out, and typically I'd have the public comment person stand over here, but I understand there's some photos. The Elmo is at this podium over here, so Paul Holstrom, if you'll come to this podium over here, and then you have three minutes to say what you want to say.

The mic's right here, and this space right here will give you the picture. And then you'll see up there, so you can center it.

The photos were just gonna be submitted at the end. I mean, we could put them up there for reference. I don't really have them. I guess I can put them up and you can see them. I also have a printed statement for you, if you'd like a copy of the printed statement. Thank you for the time, Your Honor. Paul Holmstrom, 1878 Callahan Avenue, Northport. I'm here today about a complaint I filed on March 22nd, 2026. The complaint is about a driveway expansion without a permit and a survey and damage to the underground cable service to my home. The complaint was assigned C case dash 2600907. A hearing was set for April 24th, 2026. The case was never added to the agenda. April 18th, 2026, I met with Planning, excuse me, Planning and Zoning to find out when the hearing would be held. April 24th, 2026, the property was posted for today's hearing. May 16th, 2026, the case was closed, never made it on the agenda. Since then, additional work has been done. More stone has been added to the fence line and should the fence need repair in the future, this will make those repairs much more difficult. Friday, May 22nd, 2026, I went to the city clerk for comment card. While there, they called planning and zoning and were advised a permit was issued for the work. Tuesday, May 26th, 2026, 810, I received a phone call from Planning and Zoning and was advised that they do not have a permit. Planning and Zoning asked what I would like and I asked for a re-inspection at that time and noted that the precast retaining wall blocks are backwards. The finished site should face the street and the adjacent property. May 26, 2026, 9.30 a.m., I went to Public Works, and at 10 a.m., they came out to the property, but I have not yet heard back from them on their findings. At this time, I would like to see the code that states this work is permitted, because it appears we have come to an impasse. Going forward, this case will set a precedent for work being done in a city utility drainage easement. Single family homes in RSF-2 zoning can now remove all of the sod from the edge of the driveway to the property line, including the area between the front property line and the rear property line, with disregard for the easement and without a permit. Single family homes with adjacent driveways can now fill the area between the homes with stone, thus creating an alley to gain access to the backyard for storage of cars, RVs, and boats. In closing, I would like to say 2 years ago, I added a garage to my property. I requested a 5 foot by 12 foot extension in the easement. And I was denied in the future when I resurface my driveway. I will expand it to include the entire easement area. I have some photos to submit. And that's pretty much all I have to say. All right. Well, thank you.

I don't usually say much in response, but I just want to say a couple of things. 1 is my position here is that until a case comes before me. Yeah, there's nothing. Yeah, I'm not part of. The code for the system I'm here is the call balls and strikes at the end. Um, but, um. So you might want to do get on public comment. For city commission meeting, and then also just, I don't know if you've had any contact with staff, but I'm sure staff would be willing to talk to you also.

Yeah, well, thank you for the time. I just think that this is going to set a precedent city wide.

Thank you. All right. Approval of minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes of the code enforcement hearings of April 23 of 2026? Hearing no corrections, those minutes are approved. Procedures. So the way this works is With the exception he, this person went over here because the Elmo was was on that side. But but typically the city staff will come to this podium over here. The property owner will come to this podium on this side of the room. The city goes 1st. The city presents their private patient case as to why there is a code violation. At the end of their case. That initial presentation. You're allowed to ask questions of the staff. You're not required to, but you're you can or you can just. you know, say why you do not believe you are in violation of the code. There's, with the exception of the tree cases, the lot clearing cases, it's a two-step process though where the first hearing just determines whether or not there is a violation or not and then a time is set for compliance. So the other thing that sometimes the property owner discusses is how much time they need. They may say, look, I admit that it's in violation of the code right now. It's not in compliance. I need X number of days to bring it into compliance. So that's the process. In just a moment, the clerk will ask everyone who's going to speak to stand, and the clerk will administer the oath. Once you present your case, again, the city staff has the right to ask you questions. Then typically what I do is I'll just, I'll go one more round. I'll go to the city. Do you have anything else? I'll finish with the property owner. Do you have anything else? And then I close the case and typically I just decide the case right after I close the hearing. So with and then i will also just say you know everyone says that public speaking is probably most people's greatest fear so yeah just don't you know i know it looks kind of formal here but uh but you know we'll work with you just just say what you want to say uh you know try not to get too nervous about it and we will all get through this so at this point in time i will have the clerk oh the other thing i want to say though is We will take the cases as you appeared in order. We'll take the three case first and then we'll run through the cases in the order that you signed up. So you don't have to sit through the entire agenda for the people who did not show up. We do those last. Now I'll ask the clerk to administer the oath.

And everyone wishing to provide testimony please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to provide is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge? So help you God. Thank you.

All right, at this point in time, the additional, the compliant cases which were not noted in the agenda will be read into the record.

The following three cases have come into compliance since the agenda posting date of May 12th, 2026. CE case 26-00924. CE case 26-00970. and CE case 25-02320.

All right, so the first case that we're gonna call this morning is CE case 26-00951. The property owners are Kessner and Marie Velima, and the parcel ID number is 1124106017. And whenever the city is ready, you may begin.

Good morning.

I'm Anthony Breon, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport. I've been sworn. Case number 26-00951 was initially inspected on 3-26-26. The case is addressing the violation of 2-511 MPCC fines and liens for tree protection. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 5-20-26. I've not had any contact with the property owner prior to today. And I have six photos, a true and accurate depiction of the property located at Water Drive. All right.

And then I see you have the arborist with you. Yes. You may begin.

Ryan Peeper, urban forester, I've been sworn. Mr. Breon asked that I go and inspect the property on Atwater. I arrived with a condition such as that picture that we're looking at. I'd say the entire property was cleared at that time. It was difficult for me to determine exactly what was there. So we relied on aerial imagery, historical photos, PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDED SOME PHOTOS AS WELL THAT SUPPORTED THAT A PORTION OF THESE TREES WERE AFFECTED THROUGHOUT HURRICANE DAMAGE. SO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, I COULD SAY THAT HALF OF WHAT WAS REMOVED WAS HURRICANE DAMAGE AND HALF WAS EXISTING LIVE VEGETATION. SO I FELT THAT THE CODE SPEAKS TO WHERE I'M UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS OCCURRING ON THE PROPERTY, A $15,000 PER 10,000 SQUARE FOOT PENALTY SHALL BE ASSESSED. BUT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE FAIR TO ASSUME AND WITH THE PHOTOS AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED, IT DID SUPPORT THAT A BIG PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS HURRICANE DAMAGE. SO WE FELT THAT HALF OF THE ASSESSED 15,000 WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. OKAY.

Anything else from the city on the prima facie case?

No, sir.

All right. So again, Mr. Avilema, you're entitled. You can ask questions or you can just say whatever you want to say.

Actually, first of all, I forgot to say this.

The first verse is you heard now they give their name and they say they've been sworn. So just say your name and that you've been sworn.

My name is Kessner. So I sworn to tell the truth. So actually, Thank you for your first statement. You make me a little bit comfortable because first time I'm here, I'm kind of nervous about it. Don't be nervous. This is the worst place to be. And I would like, I love to follow the laws and regulations. I've been in South Soda County for over 11 years. I love where I'm living. So I had my property on the fourth side and I bought the other property. I would like to fence it. And when I bought this property, we have some trees down and my plan is to put some mangoes, avocado trees. That was the plan and fence it. So honestly, by ignorance, I didn't know I needed a permit for it. So I just go ahead and caught the one that was on the ground and like four or five other trees, palm trees. So that was my fault and I called them. I didn't know, so.

And I always admit that I am I don't know the details of this, but I do know that there is some impact when you go replant trees after an event like this. Is there like any credit given?

In some instances we can try to offset mitigation up front as it's proposed. In this situation it was It's a set fee. So we try to reduce that as much as possible with the evidence provided by the property owner and historical aerial imagery. So if it was a proposed development. Right, yeah.

If there's a building permit application, it makes a difference. Do you have, so you don't plan to build a house on this, correct?

Yes, I do in the near future.

Okay. Well, let me ask you, so when, let's say six months go by and then he applies, then is there any, is there, again, I know it's not like a credit necessarily, but is there any benefit that he receives at that point in time or no?

Had they proposed to impact what they did, and if I take somewhat of an average of the homes, lots, it is about $7,500 in mitigation fees. So it's not that far out of the realm of what would have been charged. in order to offset those fees, preservation is where you get the credits to minimize that impact. In this instance, we don't have preservation. So they could propose to, but if they were to move forward with the building, they were already accounted for the mitigation fee in this setting. So kind of the cart before the horse setting.

Okay, and Mr. Beluma, did you say, is this house that's to the left as you face, is that your house? No. Do you own the adjacent property? You own the house behind it?

Just behind. Okay. All right.

Okay. Were you there when, were you on the lot when the arborist came and visited? No. Have you had any communications prior to today?

Prior to today, he was trying to do anything that he could to come into compliance. Right.

Okay, so do you understand the- what- so basically, let me just reiterate what the law says. So the law says that if there's a lot that's, you know, between 10,000 square feet and 20,000 square feet, and the number of trees that are removed is unknown, then the maximum fine is $15,000. And so what they're proposing is that because of some storm damage trees that they are proposing and what they're asking for is that a fine of half of that be imposed. So do you understand that that's what they are proposing?

Yeah. All right.

Do you have an opinion or is there anything you want to say about what they're proposing?

So since, I know it's already done. So there's, I was trying to talk to Ryan and find out how we can fix it. And unfortunately, we cannot find something to the table. So if we can make the difference, I would like it to be solved, honestly.

Well, and again, if you don't know the answer to this question, you know, let's say you don't know, but I mean, there's some pretty large diameter trunks that are shown here. Did you do a, and again, I know you said, well, I don't know if you, could you not find stumps? Is that, was that the problem or are some of the stumps underneath

These this debris and some of the photos that we have would prove and kind of lend Evidence to the fact that they had been down for some time Okay, the larger trees in question like that stump going from left to right in the back of that photo there You could tell the bark was already falling off of the tree So it had been over for about the period of time of an event.

I guess my question is, did you do any kind of a rough calculation of, based upon what you can see, would the per tree fine end up being roughly equivalent to what you're proposing?

I was unable to determine a per tree count.

Okay. I'm going to give you the last word. Is there anything else you want to say?

Yeah. Actually, if we can minimize the, it's a lot, over $7,000. So if you can bring something down, that would be appreciated so we can get this solved.

Well, okay. So again, these are, these types of cases are not a two-step case because the damage is already done. City Commission passed a pretty, what I would say, robust tree ordinance, which is what we're dealing with here. My job is just to call the balls and strikes. I don't make the laws. All I do is I enforce the laws. I am going to find that this was a residentially zoned lot. that the size of the lot is between 10,000 square feet and 20,000 square feet, that the number of trees removed is undetermined. But I am going to take the advice of staff, arborists, saying that based upon looking at the historical aerial photographs and information provided, by the property owner, roughly half of the trees that we're talking about were trees that were damaged by the storm, and so the fine of $7,500 will be imposed. Thank you. Next case is... I think it's a contingent, seven. Oh yeah, up at the top. Case number, CE case 2600341. Property owner is Sandra Cooper and the property address is 6515 Old Court Street. And whenever the city is ready, they may begin.

Good morning, I'm Robert Anthony Woody Harrelson, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. C.E. Case 26-00341 was initially inspected on 2-4-26. The case is addressing the violation of permit required, violation 105.1 Florida Building Code, permit required, violation comments, permit required for building not in compliance. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently 04-23-26. I have one photo to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 6515 Old Court Street, Northport, Florida.

Anything else? No, sir. Okay. So you know what the zoning is on this property? That I would not know. Here we go. They'll say right here agricultural. So this is in the estates area.

Yes, sir.

Okay. And so what I see there in the photo is there's a pole barn and then there's an enclosed garage structure that's to the rear left, maybe shrink it down a little bit. And then this structure that has the blue roof, is that a mobile home or is that a... That is a mobile home. Okay. All right.

I'm taking a little offense to that.

Okay, well, again, you don't have your chance to ask questions, all right? I'm just trying to get an idea of what the city's position is on what doesn't have a permit. So, all right. You may ask questions, or you can just statewide if you believe you're in compliance. Can you say your name?

My name is Sandra Cooper, and I am sworn in. But you said it was a mobile home. That's a prefab home.

Prefab. Okay.

That's a prefab home. Okay.

All right. Anything else?

My name is Nation Stanley. I'm sworn. You said that there's a garage structure that's enclosed, and I'm trying to see what exactly you mean. Oh, yeah.

That structure right there.

Yes. Yep. Okay. I thought that you... Because there's a... And there's a pole barn. Yes. Yeah. I thought you meant like... The house was a garage thing. I just didn't understand how you said it. Okay. I'm just clarifying.

Yeah, so, and again, so I want the property owner to understand, are these three structures that I'm seeing on this property, would all three of those structures require a building permit?

No, sir. I believe just the pole barn is the only thing we're concerned with as far as the permit requirement.

Okay.

And I believe they're working, trying to get the permit.

Oh, so there are permits for those other structures. Okay.

Okay.

I was clueless there. I mean, yeah, so. Just the one building. Yeah, okay. Now I understand. Okay. So are you in the process of trying to get a permit for the pole barn? Yeah. Okay. Okay, as I said, this is 1 of those 2 step processes where, you know, today is this a determination of whether or not there. Is a code violation, but then it sets a timeframe before any fines would. Would begin to start. Um, you know, I'm like, I like some types of structures, which are very difficult to get after the fact permits. I would think pull bars are relatively easy. I go ahead.

William Kitty code enforcement field supervisor. We met with nation yesterday and we discussed a time frame of 60 days. So just want to put that on the record that we're looking to find the violation, but we're giving them the time frame that's needed. So we're looking at.

at the additional time. Okay. And I will say this. If we somehow, I set, I'm going to set like the next hearing basically a date to bring into the compliance and that's typically a few days before a future hearing date. If you get If you're like 95% there and there's like one little hiccup that, you know, make sure you come or make sure you stay in contact with the code enforcement officer because, you know, there's we can do something at that point in time, you know, but. So here are my choices and I'm going to look for some input from the city on this. It would either be the July 23rd hearing or the August 27th hearing. Does the city have a preference? I guess we'll be fine. All right. That's acceptable to you also? Yeah. All right. I am going to find that there is a violation for no building permit for the pole barn that's on the property. I'm going to test the fine, but it won't begin until pretty far into the future. $550 a day with a maximum of $5,000 will commence on August 11 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 10 of 2026. So that gives you 75 days. Okay. That's good. And then if you have the permit in place, you don't have to come back for that August hearing. Again, stay in contact. As you've heard, we read compliant cases into the record. So if it's brought into compliance, you won't need to come back. All right. Any other questions? No. All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next case is KCE case 2502460. The property owner is Viola Jewett and Ronald Harder Jr. and the property address is 8521 Schumbach Avenue.

Yes, Your Honor. I'm George White. Code enforcement inspector and I have been sworn requesting a continuous on this case, please.

All right. And is that property owner still here? No, she's gone. She's gone. Okay. Just until next month? Just one month? Yes. Okay. We will continue it for one month. Next is case number CE case 2600717. The property owner is John McCall. The parcel ID number is 1003016734.

And the city may begin whenever they're ready. Good morning. I am Blake Vi, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 26-00717 was initially inspected on 3-6-2026. This case is addressing the violation of 42-23 NPCC, accumulation of debris. 59-1, parentheses, B, parentheses, 4, NPCC, prohibited parking, parking inoperable vehicles. And then 105.1 of the Florida building code permit required for a fence over six feet. And then chapter two of the development review article two, 2.25 ULDC certificate of zoning compliance required for a fence over six feet as well. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, but most recently on May 26th, 2026. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today. I have 17 photos to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at parcel number 1003016734. Is this how you run through the photos? Yeah, yes sir.

I don't know if I saw the fence. Is the fence in the back? There's one part of the fence is the front and then the back of the property. All right. All right, Mr. McCall, state your name for the record. Have you been sworn?

John McCall. I'm a resident of Northport. I've been sworn.

All right. Do you have any questions or you just want to talk?

I'd just like to talk. Uh, the property as you see it now, uh, there's an ongoing, uh, City of Northport is trying to, was trying to make me forfeiture my property for something that was found on my property. Uh, since then I've been to court in Sarasota and I've regained, uh, custody of the property closest to my house. Uh, The city of Northport is still trying to get the other property for something that was found on my property because I have a business there. And one of the workers had some stuff on there which I had to fall for. So what you see there, that big mess there, is from the city of Northport Police Department. They totally trashed that place. I just recently, last week, made it where I could come back to the property since the judge granted me my property back. I haven't had time to clean it up. It's just a tangled mess of debris. It's just things tossed up, everything. I do have a RV camper and a car there that was abandoned by my workers. I need to know how to get that out of there. The fence itself is under six foot. Your Honor, it's five foot ten inches. It's on a mound, a three foot mound that was already on the property. From the road, you cannot see it at all. It's covered with oak trees and lush tropical, it doesn't even look like that now. It looks totally different. You can't even see it from the, you can't see. If I would have known, I would have brought pictures in to show you.

So did you basically have like a squatter situation on this property? When you say you regained possession, what was that about?

That was what?

What was that case about? What type of case was it?

That's going on with me now, a criminal case.

Okay.

The property doesn't, you can't even see the fence from the road, Your Honor. It's nothing but oak trees and The back of the property, I have a concrete business, so I have trailers there. The fence in the back, people love the fence. I mean, all my neighbors love me there. All I do is constantly working on that place.

And do you own any of the adjoining property?

Yes, sir. Three quarters of an acre on that road.

where the map that's up here right now, to the rear or immediately to the side?

I think it's on a Soprano Drive.

But not adjacent to this property?

No, it's adjacent to it. Yes, sir.

I think you mean, so he's, there's another fence on that. See, there's two, no. Is there moving this around?

Actually, it's 440 feet of vinyl fence put up.

Hold on a second. What I'm trying to do is I'm trying to figure out what other parcel you own.

It's the house with the pool.

So that one, I got to click on that. That's not showing your name. It's showing it's owned by Genevieve Reynolds.

Okay, yeah. The house?

Yes, that's why I asked if you own property adjacent to this property, and you said yes.

Yes.

But this is showing.

That's my fiancée, Your Honor. Okay. So whenever they granted me back the property, I did do a quick claim deed to Genevieve so that the violation for the permit for the fence. I guess now if you own property in Northport, you don't have to have a permit for a fence, is my understanding?

No, you have to have a permit for a fence.

Good morning, Your Honor. Kyle Hoffman, zoning coordinator for the City of Northport. I have been sworn. In reference to the fence question, you would not need to pull a permit for anything that is one or two family residential, six foot and under from the average grade on the property. Unfortunately, this parcel does not have a single family home on it, so the nature of the fence would have to be natural, and that it would need to be wood or something of a natural status, and it would have to be 50% OPEC, not a full privacy fence.

yeah so this goes back to the change that the commission made not all that long ago where there were no fences allowed at one point in time on on vacant land and then they correct they adopted an ordinance that allow fences in certain circumstances correct correct if you'd like to know the specific code references chapter three dot section three dot seven dot seven

G, for fences on vacant property. All right. So do you understand what you did?

No, sir.

Okay. Well, so. Until about 6 months ago, the city didn't allow any fences on. On unimproved lots period there were. Yeah, people who had vacant lots, I guess, lobbied the City Commission and the City Commission did agree to allow fences, but only certain kinds of fences. This is not one of them on unimproved lots. So that's what that's what he's referring to. So, Again, is there is there anything you want to say as far as. I know you've made some statements about the height of the fence. It's why you don't believe that's in in violation. Is there anything else you want to say about. Things are in violation or is there anything else you want to say about some of the other violations where. you're acknowledging there's a violation, but you're asking for time to bring it into compliance.

Yes, sir. I would like to speak on several things. As far as the fence, I did do a quick claim deed to my fiance. So now that property is now her property adjoining her house. So...

So you're saying this vacant parcel now, this unimproved parcel, is also now in her name?

Yes. Okay, so the... The one closest to the house is in her name. The other property, the City of Northport Police Department is still trying to make me forfeiture that property, which is not gonna happen.

It's... Yeah, I mean, understand that, That's not really a relevant issue for me. It's, you know, it's whether or not it's in compliance. Okay.

So, so as far as the fence, so as far as the fence, if that property, if that property now belongs to my fiance that owns the house, adjoining that property, the judge granted me back that I sold to her, that fence should be good, right?

I'm going to let. At that point, the vacant parcel would have to be combined under, you don't need a title to the parcel that has the home. To make that a compliance structure, because it's crossing that boundary line. Yeah.

So what he's saying is just the deed alone doesn't do it. You have to then go to the property appraiser and you have to go through a process. It's called combining the parcels. It's a pretty simple process that they don't. It's not usually a big deal. To do it, but but that's what. The city requires for them to consider this unimproved parcel to be. Part and parcel of an improved parcel. Did I say that correctly?

Correct. Yeah, we would, we'd just be looking for it to be under the same ownership. Combined via Sarasota County property appraisers for tax purposes and then we have what's called a unity of title that would legally bind those 2 properties together. So you wouldn't be able to separate them without having. to come and have for that uncombined.

And that would bring, well, that would bring the height of the fence.

That would bring the material of the fence, that would bring the material structure of the fence out of the question. Right. The only thing that would be at that point, it does appear that the mound was created so that the fence could then be higher. So that would be six foot from the, it would be more than six foot from the average grade of the property. even if it was constructed under the old code, Your Honor, it was under 53-240M. I don't understand or I don't remember the exact subsection, but the old code, prior to adoption in October of 2024, had it state that it was six foot from grade, even if we did see that there were alterations, it would have been in violation being over six foot because they have created a mound for it to be placed on.

So let me just tell you what I heard and then just so that we make sure we're all speaking, understanding the same thing. So they're saying the code talks about the average grade. So it's not necessarily six feet from the top of this berm. It's six feet from the average grade across the entire lot. Then again, is that, do I understand you correctly?

Correct.

That's section E. So does that state that in writing somewhere? Because that mountain was already, I didn't build that mountain on the front of that property.

Yeah. I think what they're saying is that doesn't make a difference. It's because it's just the average grade of the property, no matter...

Would hold it?

I mean, even if that was a naturally occurring firm, it would still be the average grade of the property, right?

Correct. Yeah, that's section 3.7.7 E for height. Says fences and wall heights are is measured from the average grade of the property.

So. And again, we're just talking about the fence right now. We're not talking about anything else. If. that the property appraiser's record showed that the deed hasn't been at least acknowledged by the property appraiser. You may have, you may have recorded a deed to your fiancé for this unimproved property. It's just not showing yet. But a recorded deed from you to her and a combination of the two lots with the property appraiser allows you to maintain a fence between the two parcels without a permit. However, this height issue still is going to have to be addressed. So that means you're going to have to modify that fence somehow.

Okay, so I shot it with my laser to have a concrete business to have lasers. I shot it with a laser from her property at the back of her property to where the fence is now and it's right on the money. So I don't know if the property that I have needs to be built up still because from my grade on my laser shows that it's dead on.

All right. So what he's saying is the lot that has the improvement on it, that has the house on it, that fence is six feet from that green. Now, so when he combines this, I mean, this is- I do understand where he's coming from, Your Honor.

What I would say is when you do combine that uncombined lot or undeveloped lot, It is significantly lower because when you do build a home, they typically bring those houses up for drainage purposes. So the drainage is properly flowing. We're on a vacant lot. Typically you will have standing water and in some cases, they don't necessarily drain naturally to the swell as a developed property is going to. So, in this particular case, the entirety of that lot is going to be set lower than what the house is going to have at this point.

I understand that you're higher than the unapproved lot because that the house would be higher than the unapproved lot.

So that they would be coming back down in a sense. Okay.

So again, let me just, again, I'm trying to make sure we're all talking the same language here. So the unimproved parcel is a larger parcel and they're talking about averages. So yeah, the house is at a higher grade than the unimproved parcel, but because of the size of that unimproved parcel, the average is going to impact it. Again, I don't know how much, you know, because, but it's probably going to be less than the height of that fence right now, but it's not, again, I think, you know, it would take someone taking an average of that to do that. You know, But the key is going to be getting these lots combined and because. You know, it's the defense can't even be there at all. Any kind of fence can't be there at all without that happening. So. Well, so let's put that aside for a moment defense. Let's talk about the other violations here. So all this other material, all this other stuff here, this is accumulation of debris. So. That's going to have to be dealt with even if the lots are combined. So, um. I mean, do you have, again, what's your plan regarding all of that?

Well, I just, Your Honor, I just got back like a week ago, and so far I've done a lot. I mean, I would say 60 days I would have that, everything cleared out of there, that camper hauled off to somebody to come get it, a couple vehicles over there that aren't mine get out of there. I'd say 60 days. I would like for them to come back and re-inspect.

Okay. And then you talked about, so this truck that's there, it's not your truck, correct?

No, the truck is mine. That's legal. It's got a tag on it, insured.

Well, OK, so if he combines the lot, well, again, no one's told me which vehicle is the one that's prohibited here.

That court bets on one.

OK. Let me get the city to clarify for me which vehicle or vehicles they're talking about. Because when I see a photo, I can't. I'm not a mind reader. I can't tell.

Yes, sir. Several of the vehicles, like the Corvette, different ones, just don't have tags on them as well. Okay. And there's another one right behind it as well.

So the Corvette is not yours? No, sir. And what's the other vehicle that doesn't have a tag? It's not the truck, but... That RV.

Oh, this RV. That's not mine either.

Okay. And I know you started talking about it, that you kind of are somewhat, you don't really know... you're gonna get rid of those but have you had any, I mean just tell me what your process has been so far.

I don't know who to call to come move that out of there. I mean it was just a banding on my property so I don't know.

Do you know who owns it?

Yeah, I know the guys, some guys that were working for me, they wanted to work while they were there at the house there, so of course I said okay, which I'll never do that again.

Well, there is a process to get, there is a process that says like your personal property is on my land. You've got X number of days to get rid of it. Otherwise, I'm just going to dispose of it. You know, I see the assistant city attorney here, so I'm going to let her speak.

Hi, Governor. Kimberly Rubino on behalf. Were you sworn? Yes. Kimberly Rubino on behalf of the city. I have been sworn. I think we're just kind of. Getting off track a little bit, and we're dealing with a lot of things that don't have to do with the code enforcement matter that we're here for and a lot of hypotheticals. So, I think we just need to kind of bring it back to the facts that have been presented in the actual code enforcement case that we're here for.

I'm just asking about time for compliance. I'm not talking about violations with this stuff. I'm. I mean, you said that you could get the debris done in 60 days. And again, there is a process for getting rid of these vehicles, which if you start it right away, 60 days should do it to get rid of them. Is there anything you want to say about that?

What's the process?

Well, again, there's a statute. Just look up Florida statute. And it's for storage of property, I think, is what it's under. And if someone's storing their property, their personal property, on your real property, you have rights.

So I'd be able to haul that off?

Yeah. But you have to be able to notice first.

How about if I can't find them?

Well, you just use whatever last known address you have for them. If they left something on your property, it's kind of they have a duty to let you know where they are. Yeah.

William Kitty, code enforcement field supervisor. We're just asking to be found in violation and move forward at 30 days for the next hearing is what the city is positioning for. Thank you.

All right, so the city is asking for 30 days for compliance.

I was asking for 60 because I'm trying to get back to work here. This is only me, so.

This has been going since March 10th, sir. So we're just looking to push. Yeah. And so again, we are.

But literally less than a week away from hurricane season. And and it's and it's the debris. That's really kind of problematic here. Because all of a sudden, if we end up in a high wind event, all this stuff becomes. Flying projectiles, so that's the health. safety aspect of this case. It's again, it's not just being arbitrary. It's that this could actually cause damage to some of your neighbors. So I'm gonna give you the last word.

Yeah, I'm just asking for 60 days. As far as the debris, I'll have that cleaned up in 30 days. That's no problem. But I do have, I still have downed trees from the last hurricane in there, big trees that are still down. And I don't know, does the city come take them trees out of there? Or is that just on me?

I don't think there's any, I don't think there, I mean, are any of the trees considered debris in this case? It's all this other.

Yes, sir. I did not find the trees. It was us. Right.

No, we're only talking about all this personal property that's sitting here.

Yeah, okay.

All right, again, I'm going to give you the last word. Is there anything else you want to say?

Yeah, I'll have it cleaned up in 30 days or more.

Okay.

As far as the vehicle, the camper and the other, I'm going to have to go through the process through the court, I guess, to get them removed.

Yeah, so... But let me just take these one at a time. So on the accumulation degree, I am going to find that there is a violation of 42-23 of Norfolk City Code and that a fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on June 22 of 2026, if not brought into compliance, by June 21. And then the next hearing date then is June 25th. So that's kind of the date that you need to kind of, those dates you need to keep, you know, in mind. The prohibited parking Again, I'm going to find that there is prohibited parking for these two vehicles, the Corvette and the RV, and as a violation of Section 59-1B for the Norfolk City Code, a fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will also commence on June 22 of 2026, if not brought into compliance. by June 21 of 2026. Now this is why I want to if you're if you started this process to get those gone but you haven't finished that because again that might take that might take more than 30 days but but if you're showing good faith that you are in the process stay in contact with the code enforcement officer on this so that that can be reported back to me at the next hearing all right.

I'm just going to pull them out on the road. It ain't mine. I'm not getting fined for that.

OK. And then likewise, let's see how I'm going to deal with this. But I am going to, because the lots are not combined at this point in time, I'm going to find that there is a violation of 105.1 of the Florida Building Code for no permit for the fence. And let me, I'll save the fine and then I'll tell you what the, how the, you know, and the city will help you with the compliance. So a fine, of $50 a day with a maximum of $5,000 will commence also on July 22 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by, excuse me, June 22 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by June 21 of 2026. Did I say that right? Okay. Now, this is that getting the deed recorded so that the two lots are in the name of your fiance, and then it's going to the property appraiser to get those, to do what's called the combination of those lots. So that, and that's an easy thing to do, to be quite honest. That's three days is plenty of time to get that done. Go ahead.

Okay. So the lot, it's lot 34 and 35. So lot 34 is still, The city's still trying to take that.

So how can... Again, all I'm doing is making a decision. This will be treated differently if this is an independent lot. that's not combined with an improved lot. Again, that's all I care about, unfortunately. That tells me whether or not there's a violation or not. If you can't get them combined, then yeah, that fine is going to be imposed. And then the last one is, and that's Florida Building Code 105.1, no permit for the fence. That's that violation. And then Section 2.2.5 of the ULDC, this is this thing regarding the height of the fence. And as we discussed before, even if you combine these lots, The current height of that fence, because it's the average elevation of the lots, is still going to be more than six feet. So the height of that fence is going to have to be brought down. I'm going to find that there is a violation of 2.2.5 of the ULDC and a fine of $25 a day with a maximum of $2,000 will commence on June 22 of 2026 if not brought into compliance by June 21 of 2026. Again, I encourage you to stay in contact with the code enforcement officer. Let them know the progress because You know, if there's significant progress, but it's not 100%, but it's 95%, you know, we can have a discussion at the next hearing. All right. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. Next is. Case number CE case 2600973. The property owner is Shannon Westmoreland. The property address is 2279 Mistletoe Lane. Alright.

Good morning, I'm Josh Preston, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. Prior to the hearing, I've had the opportunity to speak with the homeowner and reference the violations. We went over what is the improved surface for the boat and also the parking and the city right-of-way. Her son is entering in the service in the U.S. Navy here soon, and I'd ask for a continuance because that's going to free up some parking space to bring the property into compliance. So, respectfully, I'd ask for a 30-day continuance.

Okay. Any objection to a continuance to the next hearing? Okay. We will continue this as a June 25 hearing. Next case is CE case 2600624. The property owner is Justin and Catherine Kendrick. The property address is 8470 Schumach Avenue.

Did I call the wrong one? No.

Is Justin or Katherine Kendrick still here?

Okay.

Did anyone see Mr. Kendrick maybe just step out to the restroom?

It's not going to end right here.

OK. Are you Mr. Kendrick? Yeah, sure. Come on down to this podium here. We just called your case. All right.

Whenever the city is ready, you may begin. I am Bligvai, Co-Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 26-0064 was initially inspected on 2-27-26. This case is addressing the violation of Chapter 2 of the Development Review Article 1, Administration and Enforcement Section 2.1.4. CZZ expired the period of validity for it. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 5-27-26. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today. I have four photos to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 8470 Schumacher Ave. And do you have a copy of the expired permit? Thank you so much, sir. Yeah. Getting that right now.

Okay. Well, that's... Isn't that what it... Okay. Okay. So... Okay, so this was going to be an addition to the house. Yes, sir. All right. All right. So, it says your name for the record that you've been sworn. I'm Justin Kendrick. Okay. And do you understand what it takes to bring this into compliance?

I've been talking with Cody about this. And I was actually here about a week and a half ago. They told me to go back to the engineer to have the plans. Separate because we got taken advantage of with people were helping us do it. And the 1 guy who paid for he committed suicide. So. I work at night, so the days I'm off, I'm doing my work myself. So we're actually out of money to do the back section of the house. So all we have enough to close in the hard work.

Right? So. To bring this into compliance, it just needs a permit. And I'm going to ask if there's anyone here from the building department. But my understanding is that the current permit would need to be extended. there may be issues with and problems with doing that or that permit needs to be terminated and a new permit needs to be pulled, I guess, by you as the property owner.

That's what Cody told me to do. He told me to go in here to separate and that permit would go to the carport and the fees would be waived. Right. Okay.

I see again, Kyle Hoffman zoning coordinator. I have been sworn for this to come into compliance at this time. Your honor, we would just need the certificate of zoning compliance to have an extension applied to it.

Now, but is that are you saying that the, that the contractor who pulled that permit.

I'm the contractor who pulled the permit.

Oh, okay. So it's easy for you to extend that permit? Yes. Okay.

All right. We would just need an extension. It would give them an additional six-month time frame at this point for that.

That's a pretty easy thing to do. So it seems like in 30 days you should be able to get that done. Again, it's not the work. It's just getting the permit.

Well, I was going to cancel the permit today with Cody.

So what happens if he terminates the permit? Does that also bring into compliance, or was there partial work done?

So with that, we would, before we would accept the withdrawal, we would go out and assess to make sure that there was nothing done to the property. With our zoning inspectors, potentially building may want to take a look at it if a building permit was also pulled to just ensure that what was originally there still is originally there so that we could withdraw that application and then it would then negate any extension or That record being an expired status.

Is that what they're going to see? Yeah. Okay. I mean, I got cameras in the back of my house. You won't look at my phone for it.

No, I mean, again, the... We'll review what was submitted to us.

Because the problem that we ran into, I'm the second homeowner of this house, and you're the owner of data permits for the back of my house. So all the money had to go to the back of the house to bring it up to code. And that's what all the damage came from. When we were in the house, the roof fell down. And I still don't know how I could have let the house pass because it's a flat roof. And every time it rains, it still has a puddle on top of the roof.

All right, so again, to bring this in compliance, all you got to do is terminate the existing permit. So I am going to find that as of today, there is a violation of Section 2.1.4 of the ULDC for this expired permit. Applied at $25 with a maximum of $2,000 will commence on June 22 of 2026. It's not brought into compliance by June 21. Of 2026, so by June 21, you should be able to get the permit.

I'm going down and cancel it now.

Okay. Yeah. But you're here. That's a good thing to do. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. No more green cards, so we'll go back to continued cases. And, oh, we got, we did both of those. Okay, so go in the first hearing cases. Case number 2600393. The property owner is Sharon Berhow and Christopher Pounds. And the property address is 5942 Trumpet Street.

I am Robert A. Woody Harrelson, code enforcement inspector for the City of Northport. I have been sworn. This case is related to CE case 26-00393. It was initially inspected on 26-26. The case is addressing the violation of accumulation of debris in violation of 42-23 North Fort CC. Accumulation of debris shall be unlawful. Then we'll go down. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 4-15-26, and I actually went by this morning and again, re-inspected it. I have two photos to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 5942 Trumpet Street, North Fort Florida.

It still looks like this as of today?

It's actually worse.

Okay. We're going to file a violation of section 42-23 of the Norfolk City Code for accumulation of debris. I can't even describe it. There's so much debris there. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on June 22, 2026. It's not brought into compliance by June 21 of 2026. Next is KCEK 2600498. The property owner is Steven, uh, Skullix, and the property address is 8502 Gale Yard Avenue. You may begin whenever.

I am Blake Vi, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 26-00498 was initially inspected on 2-17-2026. This case is addressing the violation of IPMC-2021, 302.7 accessory structures, particularly a fence and disrepair. This property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 5-27-2026. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today. I've got five photos to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 8502 Gaylord Ave.

All right. I'm going to find that there is a violation of IPMC 21-302.7 for this accessory structure fence and disrepair. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on June 22 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by June 21 of 2026. All right. Next is CEK 2600769. The property owner is Carpenter Homes, LLC. The property address is 4358 Mongite Road.

I'm Josh Preston, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn case number CE case 26-00769 was initially inspected on March 11th, 2026. The case is addressing the violations of Northport City Code 42-23, accumulation of debris consisting of tree limbs and palm sheds, et cetera, up there in the city of Radovoy. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on May 26, 2026. I have not had contact with the owners prior to today, and I have two photos to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 4320, or I'm sorry, 4358 Mongai Road.

Okay, I'm going to find that there is a violation of section 42-23 of the Norfolk City Code. Accumulation of debris for this yard waste that's at the front of the property. A fine of $10 a day and a maximum of $1,000 will commence on June 22 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by June 21 of 2026. Next is case, CE case 2600790. The property owner is Trey and Autumn Sloan. Property address is 6644 Hornbuckle Boulevard. R.H.

I'm gonna have to wing this one. I'm Robert Harrelson, city of Northport code enforcement inspector. This case with the inoperable vehicle, which has come in compliance, the additional accumulation of debris has not been cleaned up, it's still in violation.

All right. Yeah, so there's debris in front of the garage door, debris in front of the kind of what I would call the screen porch, and there's even some around on the side of the house. Okay, so we'll dismiss the prohibited parking of the white SUV, but I will file there's a violation of 42-23 North Port City Code for accumulation of debris for, as I said, this various stuff. that's shown in these photos, a fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on June 22 of 2026 if not brought into compliance by June 21 of 2026. Next is case number C.E.K. is 2600852. The property owner is Steven Seed Jr. as to a life estate and the property address is 6315

Robert A. Woody Harrelson, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport. I have been sworn. CE case number 26-00852 was initially inspected on 03-19-2026. The case is addressing the violation of accumulation of debris, violation 42-23 Northport CC, accumulation of debris. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions. Most recently was this morning, approximately eight o'clock I went by and took another look at it. I have five photos to present as evidence. Photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 6315 Delia Street, North Port, Florida. There have been no changes.

Is that structure still there that looks kind of like a bus stop almost? Yes. All right. All right. So I'm going to find that there is a violation of Section 42-23 of Norfolk City Code for accumulation of debris kind of throughout this entire parcel. I'll find a $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000. We'll commence on June 22 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by June 21 of 2026. Then I'm going to fine a violation of section 105.1 of the Florida Building Code for no permit for this structure that was erected near the front of the property. A fine of $50 a day with a maximum of $5,000 will commence on June 22, 2026, if not brought into compliance by June 21, 2026. Next is CEK 2600871. The property owner is Wendy Felix and the property address is 8333 Dolomite Avenue.

I am Blake Vi, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 26-00871 was initially inspected on 3-19-2026. This case is addressing the violation of 59-1, parentheses B, parentheses 4, NPCC, prohibited parking, parking in an inoperable vehicle. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 5-27-2026. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today. I have three photos to present as evidence. The photos are true and accurate depiction of the property located at 8333 Dolomite Ave.

I'm going to fine the violation of Section 59-1 of the Norfolk City Code for prohibited parking of this inoperable vehicle. It's a vehicle that doesn't have a tag on it. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on June 22, 2026, if not brought into compliance by June 21, 2026. Next is case number CE Case 26-00902. The property owner is C-S-M-A-B-L-T-L-L-C. The property address is 1581 South Cranberry Boulevard.

I'm Josh Preston, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of North Port and I have been sworn. Case number CE Case 26-00902 was initially inspected on March 24th, 2026. This case is addressing the violations of North Port City Code 59-1C1, prohibitive parking limitations. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently as of May 26, 2026. Just as of yesterday, I spoke with the legal representation for the LLC by the name of Kevin Diaz out of Coral Gables. He asked for, if we could extend this 60 days. So what I would ask, and I spoke with him on the phone, and he was in agreeance to find that the violation has occurred, but prolong it 60 days for them to either A, correct the issue or evict the tenants.

All right. Okay, I'm going to find that there is a violation of Section 59-1C1 of the Norfolk City Code for this parking that's, you know, on this property that's not on, you know, an improved surface. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum $1,000 will commence on July 17, 2026, if not brought into compliance by July 16 of 2026. Thank you. Next is case, CE case 2600931. Uh, the property owner is Andrew and Marina, uh, Panacea. And the property address is 1338 Jabara Avenue.

I am Tony Breon, code inspector, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn. CE case 26-00931 was initially inspected on 3-25-26. The violation description is a prohibited parking, right of way, violation 59-1B1MPCC. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 5-20-26. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today. I have eight photos to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at the above address, 1338 Jabara Avenue.

I'm going to find there is a violation of Section 59-1 of the Norfolk City Code for prohibited parking. There's actually, I think, a total of three vehicles here, if you count the trailers and the truck. Fine of $10 a day with a maximum $1,000 will commence on June 22 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by June 21 of 2026. Next is case CE case 2600942. The property owner is Fernando Formita III and the property address is 2398 Redstone Avenue.

I am Tony Breon, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport and I've been sworn. Case number CE 2600942 was initially inspected on 3-25-26. Violation description. For prohibited parking right away, violation 59-1B1, MPCC. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 5-20-26. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today. I have four photos to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 239E Redstone Avenue.

All right. I'm going to find there's a violation of Section 59-1 of the Norfolk City Code for this maroon pickup truck that's parked in the right-of-way. I find it $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on June 22 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by June 21 of 2026. Next is CE Case 2600977. The property owner is Kelsey McLeod and the property address is 3790 Abilene.

I'm Josh Preston, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport and I have been sworn. CE Case 26-00977 was initially inspected on March 27, 2026. The case is addressing the violation of Florida Building Code 105.1 permit required for window replacement. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on May 26, 2026. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today. And I have the photo here to represent as evidence. The photo is a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 3790 Abba Lane, Northport.

All right. So the photographs do show from the street that there's been a recent window replacement in this house. I'm going to find that there is a violation of section 105.1 of the Florida Building Code for no permit for this window change out. A fine of $50 a day with a maximum of $5,000 will commence on June 22 of 2026 if not brought in compliance by June 21 of 2026. Okay, moving on to the second hearing cases. First one is CE case 2600041. Property owners are Casey and Gaye Sharp. The property address is 3227 Annadore Street.

I am Blake Vi, Codeforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 26-0041 was found in violation at the 4-23-26 hearing. There have been no changes to the property, and I request that you sign the order assessing the fine.

I will sign the order assessing the fine. Next is CE case 26-00-210. Property owner is Florida Investment Fund, LLC. The property address is 3570 Chalamar Terrace.

Josh Preston, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of North Portland. I have been sworn case number CE case 26-00210 was initially inspected on January 23rd, 2026. This case was found in violation at the April 23rd, 2026 hearing. There have been no changes to the property and I request you assist the fines.

I will sign the order assessing the fines. Next is C.E. Case 2600219. The property owner is B.E. Brokers Inc. The property address is 2346 Homestead Circle.

I'm George White, Co-Inspector with the City of Northport, and I have Ms. Warren. Case number 26-00219 was found in violation on 4-2326, hearing. There have been no changes to the property, and I request that you sign the order assessing the fines.

I will sign the order assessing the fines. Next is CEK 2600236. The property owner is Modern Builders Inc. The property address is 5490 Janice Avenue.

I am Tony Brion, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport and I've been sworn CEK 2600236 was initially inspected on 1-27-26. There have been no changes to the property. I request that you sign the order assessing the fines.

I will sign the order assessing the fines. Next is CEK 2600282. The property owner is Bethel Solar LLC. The property address is 2160 Topsy Terrace.

I am Josh Preston, code enforcement inspector for the city of Newark-Portnoy. I have been sworn CE case 26-00282 was initially inspected on January 28th, 2026. This case was found in violation at the April 23rd, 2026 hearing. And as of May 19th, 2026, there have been no changes to the property, sir, and I request you assess the fine.

So we'll sign the order assessing the fine. Next is CEK's 2600316. The property owner is Todd Scott, is trustee, and Everland Capital Partners for Land Trust. The parcel ID is 1125232731.

I'm Tony Brown, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I've been sworn. CE case 26-00316 was initially inspected on 22206. There have been no changes to the property, and I request that you sign the order assessing the files.

I will sign the order assessing the files. Next is CE case 26-00392. Property owner is Sharon Berhow and Christopher Pounds. Property address is 5942 Trumpet Street.

Robert A. Woody Harrelson, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 26-00392 was found in violation at the 4-23-26 hearing. There has been no changes to the property, and I request that you sign the order assessing the fine.

I will sign the order assessing the fine. Next is CE case 2600510. The property owner is Palladio Development, LLC. The property address is 2248 Ann Arbor Road.

I'm George Whitey, Co-Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 2600510 was filed in violation on 4-23-26 hearing. There have been no changes to the property. I'm requested to sign the order assessing the fire.

I will sign the orders. That's going to find. Next is case number 25, 0, 3, 2, 1, 7, the property owner is Troy parish and the property addresses 29 of 5 vineyard circle.

I have Josh Preston, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport and Eye Evidence Forum. CE case 25-03217 was initially inspected on November 5th, 2025. It was found in violation at the April 23rd, 2026 hearing, and there have been no changes to the violations, and I request you to send the order, Assistant Officer.

I will sign the order assessing the fines. All right, there's no other public comment card, and so it is 10.29 a.m., and we are adjourned.