Code Enforcement Hearing - public_hearing

All right, it is 9.01 AM. I'm going to call to order code enforcement hearings for the city of Norfolk. 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. I see there's no public comment cards filled out. Are there any corrections to the minutes of the May 28th, 2026 code enforcement hearings? Seeing no corrections, those minutes are approved. All right. So I'm going to describe a little bit about what's going to happen. Some of you have been here before, but there's some of you are here for the first time. And I'm actually going to kind of add a little something that I haven't said in the past. So sometimes people don't understand what my role is here. They think that somehow I'm just an extension of the code enforcement department. I am an independent hearing officer. So what I do is I listen to the city's case that they put on to evidence that shows that there is a violation. Then I listen to your evidence or your challenge of the of the city's evidence. And then I make findings of fact, basically, and then I rule. So I'm not even allowed to do some independent investigation. So what's happened in the past sometimes is a property owner will say, well, I received this letter from this department from the city a couple of years ago. And I'm like, okay, well, can you can put that in record and why didn't bring it? So I'm kind of telling you right now, there's something that you believe you should have brought. That is going to help your case. You can go back to the person that signed you in and let them know that you're leaving to go get that. But you need to get back here pretty quick. because usually sometimes we wrap this up in about an hour. So you would need to be back before we conclude because if we get to the end and we call your case and you're not here, we're going forward with your case. But again, I just want to say that just so that people you know, have that opportunity. This is your opportunity to present your facts and that, but I can only make a decision based upon what's in the record today. All right. The other thing, so the rest of what's going to happen is in a minute the clerk is going to ask everyone who's going to speak to stand and the clerk will administer the oath. So that's going to be almost everybody in the room. The way it works is when your case is called and I take the cases in the order that you signed up, the city code enforcement officer will come to this podium over here. You'll come to this podium over here next to the officer and the city goes first. they present their case. At the end of their presentation, if you have questions of the code enforcement officer or any other city staff that's over there testifying, you have the right to ask them questions, cross examine them. You don't have to, but you have that right. Then you get to say whatever you want to say that either challenges the city's position or not. Sometimes what happens is there is an admission that there is a violation and we talk about time for compliance and we'll have that discussion. And then typically, after you go, I go back to the city one more time, say, is there anything else basically that the property owner said that you need to address? And then I go to the property owner last. The property owner has the last word. I close the hearing. And typically, I rule right at that point in time. So at this point in time, the clerk will administer the oath.

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

And the other thing I usually say, I forgot to say, is everyone says that public speaking is usually everyone's greatest fear. But don't, you know, I won't bite. You know, just take some deep breaths and stay calm and say what you want to say and it'll be fine. So we have some additional compliant cases that need to be read into the record.

The following three cases have come into compliance since the agenda posting date of June 12th, 2026. CECase 26-01332, CECase 26-01249, CECase 26-00871.

All right. So our first case today is case, CE case 2601048. Property owner is Gerald and Ruby Stackhouse and the property address is 3147 California Terrace. So if Gerald Stackhouse can step over at this podium. And then you'll hear the code of an officers. It's really the 1st words out of their mouth is that their name and they've been sworn. I kind of ask that you try to remember to do that on your side. I don't see anybody coming in late. It looks like everybody got sworn, but it's just good for the record. So, whenever the city is ready, they may go forward.

Good morning. I'm Robert here also code enforcement spectrum for the city of Northport and I have been sworn. CE case 26-01048, initially inspected on 4-2 of 26. The charges of the property include violation of inscriptions driving through the city right of way, violation 70-21, and certificate of zoning compliance expired, section 2.1.4 ULDC. This property has been re-inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 4, or correction, 06, 24, 26 at 11 o'clock in the morning. And I have six photos to show this case.

And can you, as you're going through these photos, just identify the freestanding carport for me? Is it that?

This is shed in the back. There's a steel building. Right. The permit was never acquired. And also driving through the right-of-way, a culvert has not been installed. There are circumstances that Mr. Stackhouse has that I believe he's dealing with, and we'll let him speak about that.

All right, Mr. Stackhouse, again, just state your name for the record and that you've been sworn.

Yes, my name is Gerald Stackhouse. I live at 3147 California Terrace. And you've been sworn. Yes, sir. All right. I applied for this permit. for the COVID back in 2024, and I have paid everything. And when I applied for it, I went downstairs, applied, then they sent me down to the public works and they said they changed their system. So my paperwork got lost in the system. On the upgrade, I paid for it. And on the carport, I paid the people, CMD carport, to do the work and for the permit. I don't know what happened, but I paid for everything with the compliance and I'm and I spoke with a couple of gentlemen's down there. Mr Cody, and they sent me this letter where they was looking into it.

Do you want that in the record? Yes. Yeah. Just hand it to the clerk. Oh, I'm sorry. The clerk will get it to her. Yeah.

So, on my behalf, everything was paid for, but I don't know what happened. I got lost in the system.

Okay. All right. Has code enforcement seen this email?

Yes.

You have? Okay. And do you have any objections coming into the record? No, sir. Okay. All right. So, and I'm going to ask both sides here. I'm trying to make sure I've got what the issues are in my head. the getting the clover permit is what would solve the driving through the right-of-way because and and so and that's most of what this email is about although they even say that this culvert permit was obtained because i guess that was a requirement For the carport permit? Yes, sir. Okay. So I just want to make sure I understand that. And then for the carport permit, I think what they're saying, I think that was, it has the number 25 in it. I guess that was, that permit was pulled in 2025, but it has expired. And what, I'll ask you, Mr. Sack, what has the building department told you about What it takes to extend that permit.

Nothing.

Okay. Um. Well, I'm going to come up with a suggestion here and that is. Um, that we take a short continuance on this case. I mean, it seems like this is. There's enough here that it seems like code enforcement should go down to the building department with Mr stack house. And okay, is this the building?

Kyle Hoffman zoning coordinator I have been sworn. All right. So, with this particular case, he did have a call for permit pulled in 2024. When we did change to Acela, the culvert permit did not transfer over into the system because it was with Public Works at the time. So in a sense that permit isn't necessarily lost, it's still in our old system that was being handled through Public Works Department to follow up with that. He has since applied for his detached building, but that building is still sitting in a waiting plan status where we are waiting drawings a site plan we haven't had any documentation turned in for this at this point in time if we can get documentation turned in for this application we would actually be able to move it forward we would be able to kind of combine combine that culvert permit with it but at this time we haven't been receiving any documentation um From the applicant at this point in time, so if he did hire a contractor, the contractor did everything without the permit and now he's kind of scrambling on the backside trying to get this taken care of.

So, what what kind of permit was issued in 2024?

Just so it was a culvert with the, the slab and on the property. So it would have been a culverts and a structural slab.

But so I guess what's confusing me is I'm looking at the agenda item here. It says a freestanding carport was built on owner's property. The permit was obtained but never finalized. And that seems to be a little bit different than the testimony I'm hearing right now.

So I can tell you the permit that was obtained was for the culvert only. The building itself never received the approved application at this point.

well what's the notice of violation say i mean is it consistent with what i'm reading here or is it okay i wasn't gonna pull a slab uh under the carport i wasn't pouring the slab i was just doing the staff for the right-of-way i wasn't putting a stab on that cost too much

William Kitty, field supervisor. I'm just trying to help clarity with the two violations. It's mainly for driving through the right of way. That would be covered with the culvert if it was in place or the permit was done. That's the part for the culvert, which was the original permit that was the gentleman, the owner is saying that he had applied for through in 24. The ULDC, the second violation was for the carport itself. That's the CZZ that was started but didn't have enough plans or documents that were submitted to complete that process and get it issued. So separating the two violations, The first one was mainly for driving through the right-of-way without the culvert and driveway.

My only question is for the second violation. I'm just looking for the actual notice of violation to say, you know, this structure was built with no permit, which is not what's written here in the agenda.

I'm just trying to... She's working on it.

She's trying to get... I can, I think I can read it if I push it back, okay. So, precinct will build. So that is consistent. It's expensive if we can have it. Okay. And the CZZ is what?

CZC is what?

So the Certificate of Zoning Compliance is the planning application for approval for placement location. So we take care of any non-building code regulations, so the ULDC only. So we're looking at building site for drainage, zoning for placement and size. Arborists are looking at, the natural resources are looking at if any trees are being removed. As well as public works for any covert or right away, but essentially it's the application.

It's not the permit.

So that's our application that would then once that application is approved, then they can apply a building with that application to match their site plan for their structure. If they're putting a structure up.

All right and then so. And then help me out here again, so it's ultimately public works that is going to issue the culvert permit because. when it was applied for, that was who was responsible for doing it?

So at this point we can have that culvert wrapped up within the application for the detached structure within the CCC. So now since we've transitioned with our new code into Acela, the CCC has taken place of a lot of those just right-of-way permits or in a sense zoning only permits. It's now just a CCC application. and then if there's any structural component therefore after, they would have to take that CZC and then go to building.

All right, so Mr. Stackhouse, do you understand now what it takes to bring all this into compliance?

Not really. The CZC is not really on loss.

Yeah, okay, well let me take a stab at it and then, well.

I can try to do it as layman's terms as best I can.

Sure, yeah, go ahead.

William Kitty again, field supervisor. not looking at your property, just doing what we need to do to get this all completely removed. You have an expired culvert permit. We're just gonna take that permit and put it right into your CZZ application that you already have in. Get the plans and the things that are needed for zoning. Once that gets done, it gets an approved and issued CZZ, then you can apply for the building permit which does the building itself that's there. Those are the steps, right now before us, we're not dealing with the building permit, we're only dealing with the CZZ and the culvert. So just by going and working with the planning department, they can put the culvert in with the CZZ, that 25-278, we're gonna put them in one. That way you can take care of it all in one swoop. You submit what you need for the building for that carport with that CZZ application, get them what they need, that gets to be moved forward, that's where your process and this will all go away.

So I got to start all over with the steps?

It's not starting over. You just have to, we're just going to take that permit that you had originally started with the culvert with Public Works back in the day.

Okay.

And we're just going to combine that culvert permit with your CZZ application so that we can get it to today's standards. Okay. And move forward from there where you can then get issued the CZZ where you can then begin putting the culvert in, the apron, and then you can also apply for the building permit for the actual carport that's been placed there. So, this is just the very beginning preliminaries, which is just getting an application what's needed for the building what's needed for the right of way, which has already been done. We just need to get that all pushed forward at 1 in 1 package. And then it'll take care of all of this. Okay.

Yeah. And but I think what he really needs to understand, because what I'm hearing is. is that there's still additional information that's required for the issuance of the permit from that CCZ, is that?

And that's what I was talking about, the structure itself that you're putting there, if you're gonna have a placement of a... We would need to see where it's located. Where it's located on the property. It's all gonna be based on the blueprints, the plans of that carport, and where you're placing it on the property. It's usually a survey and where you're placing it. That's all should be in part of the documentation for when that carport company came to you.

To build that property, I need to get back with them to having the right. Yeah.

If you don't have any plans, we need those plans in order to move it forward. Okay.

Yeah. So, again, I, I don't use. I don't usually start broadcasting what what my thought process is until I close the hearing, but. But I tell you what, I mean, the. Again, it's not just the language in the agenda. It's the same language that's in the notice of violation. I'm a little concerned about the due process, like the notice aspect of that. I'll tell you what my inclination is, and then I need to hear from both sides, is to continue this till next month. And what I would, because again, the, the goal here is not to punish you. The goal is just to have compliance, right? So, um. If by next month, if there is. What I would call significant progress. Towards the issuance of that permit, you know, meaning that. You know, you have already found you've gone back to the company. You're getting whatever the deficiencies are addressed. And you come back and and you and you stay in communication with code enforcement so that they know what's going on. And you come back and then we kind of see where we are a month from now because because as I said, you know, I look at these for the first time today and the word permit in the notice of violation that says the permit was issued. Not for the culvert, but or but for the that it was a bit confusing to me. So I'm. If there's no objection from either side, I would like to continue and then we have a status report at the next July meeting. But again, I'm going to encourage you that you've got some work in front of you and to get that to a point where you're ultimately going to get a permit for that. Is there any objection on the city side for a continuance until next month on this?

We're not seeing any issues if we were to continuance to next month.

Okay. Is it a continuous next month?

And if we get the application information that they need and required?

Oh, yeah. So, also, let's say everything is done and you actually get that permit issued and they know that, you won't even have to come back. They'll just put it into compliance at that point in time. Understand? Yes, sir. All right. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. All right. That will go into the record. OK, the next case is CE case 2601366. Property owner is Dwight Hall as to a life estate in Anthony Thompson. The property address is 6260 Balboa Terrace.

I'm Robert Harrelson, Code Enforcement Inspector of the City of Northport, and I have been sworn CEK 26-01366, was initially inspected on 4-27-26, violation of descriptions of accumulation of debris, violation 42-23-NPCC, and violation of prohibited parking limitations, violation 59-1C1-NPCC, and assigned numbers violation 7-0-56H in BCC. This property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 06-24-26 at 1230 p.m. And that's in the side yard.

What I'm looking at right now, the photo I'm looking at right now, that's the side yard.

Yes, there's a large propane tank not connected.

And some other like materials there.

Right.

All right. Anything else?

I have spoken with the gentleman. He is in the process of trying to get a shed permit, which is on file. The truck is storage for him. And he wants to get the shed to move everything into that and get the problem resolved. And I'll let him go from there with it.

All right. Mr. Hall, I'll take your name for the record.

I'm Dwight Hall. I've been in contact with Robert several times. But it takes me a while for me to get everything up because I never have the survey records. So I have to get it. Survey and I have to get the zoning compliance. They just approve it. The trailer is gone. That truck is gone. The propane tank. The lab next door is mine. I never know. I couldn't put it there, you know, so I can't move the propane until I get rid of that truck. So that's okay.

So let me ask you this. How long do you think it will take to get? And again, I think, well, so this is a violation. It's just getting the permit. It's not going to cure it. He's got to get the permit. He's got to finish the storage shed. And get the tank inside of it. To cure that. So how long do you think it'll take to get the permit though?

I'll say roughly the permit. I'm going to apply for it today.

Okay.

You know, because they just passed the zoning compliance yesterday. I just saw that when I came in from the email that they approved it. So it all depends on how long the permit is gonna take. I already paid for the shed already. It's just for me to get the permit for them to put in.

And about how long does it take to install the shed once you have the permit?

I have no idea. I don't know, seriously.

I assume it's a company that you've contacted.

Yes, yes, a company named King's Shed out of Lake Susie right here.

All right. So on this one, I'll tell you what. Well, first of all, is there anything else the city wants to ask? I see Mr. Kitty watching now.

You didn't ask for 25 days. You asked for 25 days.

So for the violations, we're just asking the city for 25 days for compliance and that should be sufficient if That's what I'm saying if we find violation of the of the violations that we're giving you today 25 days should be enough to Rectify the situation and hopefully take care of it So we're just looking for the finding of violations.

And I get that. I understand that. And that is my inclination, just so you know, if I haven't ruled yet, is that define a violation. The numbers is easy. You understand that. You just go out, find some numbers, and stick it on the house. But my only question is, again, this is just getting the permit for the shed. That doesn't... Cure the violations, he's got to get the permit. He's got the company that he's contracted with to install the shed and then he's got to get that tank inside the shed. So, I mean, to me, that sounds a little bit more like 50 days than 25 days. Thank you. Okay, I mean, yeah, yeah, it would take some time.

Okay.

All right. So, and I'm going to. Typically the numbers is so easy. I would just that would be a 25 day thing because but it's everything I'm gonna put the time frame the same for all of this You know the funniest thing I have the numbers I just removed them when I was painting the house I just put them on this evening there's a violation of 42-23 of the Norfolk City Code for this accumulation of debris, some of which has been, I guess, maybe has been dealt with, but the main thing are these propane tanks. And a fine of $10 a day with a maximum $1,000 will commence on August 15th of 2025 is not brought into compliance by August 14 of 2025 or 2026. I'm sorry. I'm 1 year off. And then and then, likewise, as you say. Some of some of the disallowed parking has been cured, but there's still 1 truck that is a violation. So I'm going to find there is a violation of 59 dash 1. See 1 in Northport city code. for the one truck that's remaining that is the storage right now. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will also commence on August 15th of 2026 if not brought into compliance on August 14th of 2026. And then I'm going to find there's a violation of 70-56H of the North Port City Code for not having assigned numbers visible from the street. And a fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on August. 15, 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 14th of 2026. All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next case is case C.E. case 26-01382. The property owner is Valerio and Morella Ramonel. And the property address is 8029 Larimore Avenue. And whenever the city is ready, they may.

I'm Robert Harrelson, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I've been sworn. CE case 26-01382 was initially inspected on 4-28-26. The case is addressing the violation of prohibited parking right-of-way, violation 59-1B-1, North Port City Code. Second one is prohibited construction equipment, violation 59-1B3, North Port City Code. And violation three is prohibited interoperable vehicle parking, violation of code 59-1B4, North Port City Code. And debris city right of way, violation 42-24A5, North Port City Code.

So this photo is up right now. What am I, what am I?

The debris ran right away, right across the street by the garbage can. Okay.

All right. I saw that culvert, I suppose, there. I thought. That. Okay. That has nothing to do with this one.

Okay. Got it. Most recently inspected on 6-24-26. Okay. I have spoken to the owner of the home and they, she is willing to admit to the violation and ask for a 30-day extension to have a culvert placed and get the vehicles off the property. The truck has a blown motor, it's inoperable, and behind the truck is a large backhoe. The truck's in backhoe.

All right, Ms. Ravenel, state your name for the record and you've been sworn.

We need more time for the...

Is that your name for the record? Yes. Okay. And and you agree with what the basically 25 days you can get this resolved.

We tried.

Okay. Okay. All right. Hearing that, then I'm just going to go ahead and enter the order now unless there's anything else you want to say. Okay. I'm going to find a violation of 59-1B1 of the North Port City Code for prohibited parking that trailer that's parked in the right of way. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on July 21, 2026, if not brought into compliance by July 20th of 2026. I'm gonna fine a violation of 59-1B3, prohibited parking on the adjoining lot. Fine of $10 a day and a maximum of $1,000 will commence on July 1 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by July 20th. of 2026, uh, fine violation of 59-1 before the Norfolk City Code for this other inoperable vehicle that's on the property, a fine of $10 a day with a maximum $1,000 will commence on July 21, 2026, if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. And then I'm going to file a violation of 42-2485 of the North Port City Code for all this kind of what I would call yard debris that's in the city's stormwater drainage area, the swell or the ditch, applying to $10 a day with a max of $1,000 will commit on July 21, 2026, if not brought into compliance by July 20, 2026. All right. Thank you. This is the combined one. Okay, the next case is a case that was continued from a prior hearing. It's case CECase 25-02460. The property owner is Viola Jewett and Ronald Harder Jr. And the property address is 8521 Shumrock Avenue.

I'm George White, Code Enforcement Inspector with the City of North Wharton. I have been sworn CE2502460 was initially inspected on 8-12-25. This case has been continued as of February 26th, 2025, correction 2026. It was continued on April 23rd, 2026, as well as May 28th, 2026 for the violation of 304.1.1 IMPC unsafe conditions. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 6-17-26. I have four photos to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 8521 Schumacher Avenue. City's recommending 50 days on this here, spoke with the owner, and she's in the process of getting solar panels and a new roof put on it.

All right. Yeah. So, yeah, I understand that the... The company that does the solar panels will actually put the new roof on.

Yes.

All right. So I'm going to find that there is a violation of 304.1.1 of the IAPMC for unsafe conditions on this roof. I am I think, again, this one's been continued for a long time, so I'm going to go with a maximum fine, which is $250 a day with no max if beginning on August 15 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 14 of 2026. The next case is CE case 2600657. The property owner is Gene Jurgensen, and the property address is 4627 Sunburst Avenue.

I'm George Whitey, Code Enforcement Inspector with the City of Northport, and I have Ms. Smorn. Case number 2600657 was initially inspected on 03-03-2026. This case is a violation of 105.1 Florida Building Code, permit required for a fence installed over six feet tall. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 6-17-26. I have two photos to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property at 4627 Sunburst Avenue.

Anything else? No, that's it. All right. All right. Ms. Jurgensen, if you'll state your name for the record, and you've been sworn.

I've been sworn. My name is Shea Reagan.

Oh, okay. And how are you related to the property owner?

I am the property owner.

Oh, okay. You just changed your name? Legal name change, yeah. Okay, legal name change.

It confuses people. I love that.

Okay, got it. All right. Do you have any questions or is there things you want to say or is...

Yeah, I actually went in October 2025 to find out if I needed a permit for this particular project. I spoke to Kevin Raducci, who went into great detail. He told me I didn't need a permit for this. So I started the project. I've got 40 years' experience in construction. This is not unknown to me to get things in order. And I received a notice that I needed to get a permit. So I called him and talked to him. It was a very uncomfortable, unprofessional conversation. but I ended up coming in eventually and speaking to Cody Crawford, who was very helpful. He told me I needed to get a permit, but he needed to check some things, and when he got back to me, I was told I needed an engineer's report, a drawing, and a seal. That is an undue burden to me. This is a very menial landscape curb with a fence, and I'm trying to See here, it's a 14-inch landscape curve, and then it's backed by a 4- to 6-inch footer. We have rebar in it vertically and horizontally. We have weep holes in it. The fence itself is about a foot off the ground. It will be filled in, so it will actually be 6 feet in total height when we're done with that.

So you've sort of created, I guess, patio terrace. Would that be a kind of a I'm looking at the picture here. So essentially, it looks like you brought the grade up.

Although nothing's been done to change the grade right now.

OK, so all that. That concrete where the air conditioning compressor is, that was all there previously?

Yes, that's the base of the air conditioner.

And that concrete runs all the way to the back of where this fence is now, or is that new concrete that was poured back there?

There's no concrete poured. There's a curb next to the fence. It's hard to see there, but you can see it at the base beyond the bush.

All right. Again, I see the building official here. Again, I'm not saying I agree with anything. This is what I understand the property owner is telling me. They're saying, well, it's a six-foot fence. I just installed it on top of this existing curb, basically. Did I get that correctly?

Well, it's inside. It's not actually sitting on top of it. It's inside of it.

Defense okay.

Um, they're separate.

All right and and again, I have to admit, I'm not real familiar this if the fence is less than 6 feet. It does not require a permit or. But if it's more than 6 feet, it does. Okay. I'll go ahead and let the building official.

So, again, Kyle Hoffman zoning coordinator, I have been sworn. So, the way the code reads for the in section 3.7.7 is you do not need to pull a permit for offense. That's non structural. And up to 6 feet and 1 and 2 residential. So, the way this fence currently sits is it is well over 6 feet because, as she attested, there's 14 inches of a brick on the bottom side. And then she has 6 foot fence panels and that on top of it. So, in a sense, we're looking at about an 8 foot fence with 9 foot posts, which the posts are allowed to be up to a foot over. The panels as per code, anything over 6 feet would require a permit or if it's a structural fence. The same thing would apply to retaining walls where we would need to have. The engineering and the structural components of that retaining wall, because it's as she's attested, she's going to be changing the grade, which would also require to have a permit if she's bringing in dirt. To change the drainage layout to make sure that is following proper code for drainage zoning has been involved in this since approximately the 18th of March. I do have some emails back and forth that I can provide for you. Just showing back and forth when she did email one of our zoning plans reviewer, Cody.

Okay, before I look at this, I'm going to have you take a look at these, get the officer to come down, and I'm going to ask if you have any objections, and I'm not asking if you agree or disagree, but I'm just asking, do you agree that that's an accurate email going back and forth, that it represents the actual communication?

Yeah, I remember receiving this, yes. And that was my first awareness that this was that extensive. And if I may correct Kyle's presentation.

Okay, let me just take a minute to read.

Yeah, some of the numbers are off.

Again, I'm not asking if you agree with what's the content of it. I'm just asking if you agree that this was... No, not that. His numbers are off. Okay. All right. Okay, I'm going to try to read this in order. Probably start to the back and then... I'm going to ask the city a question. Again, what I'm reading here is you're saying that because of your experience in construction, you designed this and then constructed it yourself, and you can't get an engineer to sign and seal and certify because They weren't part of the plan, so let me let me ask the city this question. If. If an engineer, well, let me I'll ask you this question first if. What if you. But an engineer give any kind of certificate that is. Less than what you asked for in order that you, you actually say, here's the plans. Here's the spec that I. built this to, and if the engineer says, OK, based upon that, I would certify that it meets these standards. I mean, do you think you could get this? I'm going to turn around and ask the city a question next. But do you think, what do you have there?

It's an engineering report. So this is all the specs that would be necessary if I could submit this.

Again, let the city take a look at it. Again, I'm just going to ask, is there any objection that it's this, I'm just looking for accuracy.

I will tell you we have seen these numbers before. The issue that we have told her again with these specs are the fact that they are not signed and sealed by an engineer. So as many of us know, an engineer, will stamp their product, what they're gonna do. We can't accept something that's going to be structurally done as she's even attested she put in a footer. that is going to be backing this. So in a sense, it has become a structural fence. So regardless if it's going to be six feet or not six feet, it's still going to require to have to go through the permitting process. And I have no objection to that. It's at this point where it's a structural fence, she's putting it on top of a retaining wall that we need to be able to see through the permitting process, how it is being constructed and placed on the property line. with what rebar, where it's at. Understanding the weep holes, where the drainage is. We're trying to ensure the drainage is still being followed on the property. Again, we need all this information coming from an engineer, not from an individual.

Right, okay. And I think, let me just ask a clarifying question first, because I think I heard what you're saying, but I want to clarify it. and why an engineer cannot do a certification that says that. My question is, would the city accept Something from an engineer that where the property owner who is also, you know, experience in construction actually creates plans and specs and the engineer says.

If it was building in accordance with this, if an engineer would be willing to stamp her plans, we would accept those. Yes, but.

and stamping plans, because that engineer is going to want to put some language in there that says, I didn't engineer this. I'm just saying that if this was what was built, then

Because then, but at that point in time, that would be coming back to that engineer's license. So he's going to be the 1 claiming responsibility for those specs how it's being put together. So that that's 1 of the reasons why we are looking for an engineered stamp.

Set of plans, so I'm going to go back and ask you that same question again. Do you think. you could get an engineer to do it with that caveat.

I have not been able to find someone so far. But if I may clarify something, because Kyle has misrepresented this. This is not a structural fence. The wall and the landscape curb is separate from the fence. This was done on purpose. The fence stands alone on its own.

By structural fence, do you mean a fence that's over six feet?

So it wouldn't necessarily fall, but she's even said she's putting footers in there. This is in the block wall itself, which has footers. It's not going to be a standard non-structural fence where I'm pouring concrete by a fence pole.

I'm sorry, that's incorrect. The fence posts are independent of the landscape curb completely.

You said they were within the landscape curbing.

No. There is an independent... a curb that is reinforced with rebar both laterally and longitudinally or vertically and horizontally. The fence is inches away from it. The posts are reinforced with 60 pounds of concrete. The posts are four feet in the ground and it's not going anywhere.

So again, this is going back to my question. Again, this is assuming you should get an engineer that would sign and seal with the caveat that says, this was not my design, but if this design was built, it meets standards. Does that satisfy the city or not? Yes, go ahead.

I don't think you were here to be sworn.

I was not, I need to be sworn. Anyone who did not get sworn, I think there's only this one person, the clerk will administer the oath at this point in time.

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

I do.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, sir. For the record, Elena Ray, Director of Development Services, and I have been sworn. Once you build a structure, once we get into it being a structural component, the requirements for that fall under the Florida Building Code. So at that point, we are not looking merely at the regulations from the ULDC. We are looking at the requirements for a structural wall under the Florida Building Code. A structural wall... does require, with a fence built on top of it, would require an engineer to certify that the wall is built in conformance with the Florida Building Code footers and foundational requirements and meets the Florida Building Code wind load requirements. And that is one of the key reasons for this. As the structures get taller, the wind load is higher. Right. So it is critical that we would not be able to accept anything short of an engineer certifying that it is built in compliance with the Florida building code.

Okay, here's my question. And again, the property owner testified in the photograph, seems to be consistent with that, that this fence is not sitting on top of a wall. It's, those posts are in their own independent footers. So, if that, if those are the facts, does that change your testimony.

It does not because that fence, the top of that fence sits higher than six feet from the grade on the outside of that fence.

Okay, so I'm going to ask the property owner to, again, this is sort of my very first question, describe historically what has been on that side of the house.

There was a fence there, previous.

I'm really talking more about the grade.

Uh, it's a minor slope. It's a, um, 312 pitch.

And and so it's slowed down below the top of this. Concrete block wall.

Yes, at the outside, yes. At the outside. Can I submit some photos that might give you more clarity as to the structure of this?

Sure, yeah, have them take a look at it. They've seen these, I've submitted. Just asking for just, you know, do you agree that they represent, you know, the property?

Yeah, they're identical to what's been submitted before.

And for clarity, sir, This photo, it looks to be inside. We can get into what it represents right now.

All I'm asking is any objection that that just reflects the side yard. No, sir. All right. Okay. Let me take a look at it now. And then I think there is going to be some back and forth on these photographs.

And the engineer's report does show the pressure per square foot, which is rank inactive. It's 31, which is not substantial.

Okay, so this photograph here, which is the area that is between the fence and the house.

Yes.

That, is there like wood decking on top? I'm trying to figure out what I'm looking at here.

All right. The black is landscape fabric. That's for drainage. Okay. All right. And just to comment on what Kyle presented, we're not backfilling with soil, which would change the drainage. If we backfill, it will be 57 stone, so it will allow the same drainage that's going on there. There's weep holes every four feet, so no water will be standing and no pressure will be put against that from water.

All right. um and i may give these back to you to to answer these questions so and again and part of this is you know i mean well i'm going to go back to the inspector You have, has anyone actually been on, well, I'll ask you, has someone from the city come on site with you and measured the fence and that type of thing?

No, and I've invited them to because it's fully exposed, so it would answer every question that they have. I purposely have not gone forward with the project to cover anything. So they can see the posts. They can measure the posts. They can see what's exposed, what's underground. They can see the wall.

Yeah, so... And again, you understand that unless you invite them on your property, they're, they're not, they're not allowed. Oh, I do. Yeah, they're not allowed to go on your property. But, but with the invitation, here is, I would like to have the facts nailed down a little better before making a decision. So my inclination is to continue this till next month. have a site visit with city staff, measure this, measure everything so that you can come in and say, this is exactly how tall the fence posts are. And find out any other information you have because I will tell you this, when this case first opened this morning, The photograph made it look like the fence was sitting on top of that wall, and obviously it's not. So that's caused some questions for me, and I think this is going to be better if everyone has their facts straight. So is there any objection from the city to continue until next month? Yes. There is? Okay, let me hear it.

This has already been going on for multiple months. There is no reason to continue this. She's been given the opportunity to get what is required by our code and by Florida law.

How tall is the fence?

Sir, I can address that. The fence at this point is approximately eight feet. Because the fence...

I want to hear approximate. I don't want to hear approximate. I want to know how tall this fence is. Do you have... And I guess what I don't understand here is... You know, you got a property owner saying, come on my property.

Excuse me, Your Honor. For the record, George White and I have been sworn not at any time have the homeowner contacted myself or anyone from the zoning department to come on her property to do and conduct an inspection. So to say that we've had the permission to do, that's totally frivolous. We never had that information.

And believe me, if this is in violation, I have no problem. I'm just saying I don't have enough facts to make that determination at this moment. But I might be able to have those facts. if we get more information.

Well, the best way to do that, sir, again, no disrespect, to have the zoning inspector come out there who's certified in this area to go out there and conduct an inspection and then to take care of all of that.

That's what I'm suggesting. Yes, sir. Okay. We're on the same page.

All right. If we do, though, we're not going to have any, the city is not going to be amenable to any, this is maybe we can amend how the engineer's report would be or any of that.

Yeah, I well, I think I just asked those questions. I honestly, after hearing the answers to those questions. I don't think that's a viable option. It was just, you know, I had to ask and and I think. I think based on what the property owners said, and also what the city said is. That's just not that's not going to work is either going to be. After getting some more facts, it's either going to be in violation or it's not. you know that's that's going to be the situation all right so any objection to continuing this till next month and uh and then between now and then there will be a site inspection and you know detailed measurements will be made um you know you can any information you want to provide to them you can provide to them any objection i have a couple questions actually who is this person who just came in she didn't introduce herself i'm sorry assistant city attorney and i have this one

I'm sorry, your name?

Kimberly Rubino. Okay.

All right. Further, I have invited from Cody to talking to Kyle for people to come to my location. I met with George White. I also invited him. He was taking the photographs. I met with him and asked him to come on the property. I'm only going forward at this point. Understood. Understood. But I can tell you that the fence is exactly seven feet. And I believe that photograph was submitted to Cody, perhaps, in an email. I was trying to find it here.

All right. So we will continue this until next month. I will tell you this, though, that after this inspection and after some further communications, if the city has a strong case for violation I'm going to probably encourage you to start trying to figure out what the corrective action is. Because, as I said, I just don't have enough facts today to make a ruling. But, you know, I did.

Well, Your Honor, the property owner just testified that the fence is seven feet.

Well, I've been hearing nothing but eight feet. That's the only thing I've been hearing is eight feet. Exactly.

It's wrong.

She just said seven feet.

It will be six feet when grade is put in, when it's finished.

It was about 30 seconds ago. So I'm a little bit concerned.

No, so, okay, again, so I keep, so you've got this landscape fabric. So your plan is to backfill to that retaining wall with soil? Is that your, no? What is the plan?

It'll be crushed stone, 57 stone, which will allow drainage exactly as it is now.

And, sir, if I may? Sure. The clarification needs to be made that it's not measured from inside that retaining wall. It is measured from the ground on the outside of that retaining wall because she is building that area up. The retaining wall itself needs a permit.

Well, this is why I'm going to ask this question again because I'm not sure I understood the answer. Tell me the historical, you know, How long have you owned the property?

13 years.

13 years? 13 years. So what was that side of the house, what was there when you purchased the house 13 years ago?

It was soil and it's been eroding, so it was higher than it is now.

Okay, so it was not the grade that's on the outside of this wall? This retaining wall? I'm sorry? It was higher than the grade that's on the outside of this retention wall.

It was previously, yes. It's eroded.

And was the retention wall there when you purchased? No. Okay. When did the retaining wall get installed?

That was this year.

This year. Well, and if you can't answer this question today, maybe with some further research you can answer it. Can you tell me historically, and again, this would go back to when you purchased the property 13 years ago, what was the grade at the location where that fence is located?

I can tell you several inches higher.

than and there had been a fence there that was trying to retain sorry higher than what higher than what i'm looking at right now or yes okay several inches if i may your honor the only relevant

evidence for today is what the grade is today. So as property owner testified today, the fence is at seven feet, which means it would need a permit and the engineer's certificate and everything else that you have heard the city testify today. So I would submit that you have all the relevant facts you need to find the property owner in violation today.

Okay, I'm going to say she has a point.

Well, my understanding is that the engineer's report was if it was eight feet.

Yeah, and all I was hearing was eight feet, and all of a sudden now I'm hearing seven feet. It's up to eight feet. Can the city clarify the difference between seven feet and eight feet?

It's anything over six feet, and the retaining walls always need a report. The retaining walls, that wall is built on the property line. That affects the drainage next door. And so you have to have the engineer's report stating that the wall is built correctly, the weep holes are built correctly, the footers are built correctly, and that it is not going to impact negatively the drainage next door.

So... Oh, yeah. Okay. So this is not all about the fence.

If I may, the wall is on my property, so it does not affect... It's not in the covert, so it doesn't affect my neighbors. It is in the drainage.

It is in the drainage.

No, it's on my side of the property of that.

It, however, is in the city's drainage easement, and that easement is meant for the conveyance of stormwater.

I would argue that because it doesn't touch that covert flat area.

There are side yard easements in every platted lot in the city.

Correct, which is why we do require permits for those retaining walls because the retaining walls change the drainage. In this case, it would not.

It was designed not to. I think what they're saying is if you get an engineer that says that, then... Well, the report that I gave you does cover that.

It's not certified.

Yeah.

An engineer is going to poke my numbers into a program.

And he's going to certify based on his experience and his license with the state.

But unfortunately, you put me at an onerous hardship because I cannot find someone to come in after the fact. And I tried to avoid all this by coming into the office to start with.

Senator, I think we're repeating ourselves at this point.

Well, again, I have no idea what your question was. I mean, did you come in and say, I want to install a seven-foot-high fence, or did you just come in and ask, hey, do I need a permit to install the fence?

No, I went into great detail about the project. about the landscape curb, about the wall, and what my plan was, and what could I do, what should I do in order to, you know, backfill. So I was told I didn't need a permit at that time. And that's the only reason I went forward with the project.

This falls into the statement I said at the beginning of today. This is qualified judicial, it's somewhat informal, but you do have the right to subpoena and call witnesses. That would be extremely helpful. The best evidence would be if that person was testifying,

That would be a hostile witness circumstance.

Well, yeah, I get to take all that into consideration, but you get to examine them. So I, again, I've heard, I mean, I think there is about a 97% chance that there is a violation here. I, my inclination is still to continue it to actually have the record a little better for, for that. But I'm also, yeah, I mean, this whole existing grade thing is, is what's sort of baffling for me. And I'd like, again, that to be the focus of the continued hearing. and everyone to be really prepared to make their arguments.

Respectfully, Your Honor, if you're saying it's a 97%, that's more than enough to meet the burden that's established.

No, I'm just saying. I'm just saying. I'm just saying. I'm just saying with based on what I know right now. But again, I'm just saying I'd like to have more facts before entering an order.

We've established everything that we have to establish. And you've heard me say this before. As a citizen, you're impugned with knowing the the laws of the city so i'm really not under understanding what facts you would want the city to come in we we have met the burden that we are required to meet it is not a 100 certainty burden number one it is not a beyond a reasonable doubt but that when i say i'm just saying

that I think that once some more facts come out, then it's going to be 100%. And I just want to say this. So this is an unfortunate situation. In a different, we have people who, I mean, the typical scenario is someone decides to turn their garage or carport into habitable space and they do it without a permit. And is it possible to get an after the fact permit for those? Yes. But is it, you know, can someone just go in Without doing anything and getting an after the fact permit. No, but but and again, we're in the hurricane season right now. The reason why. The Florida building code has these requirements is. They don't want fences flying around, you know, being missiles going into other structures. So it is a real health and safety issue. I guess the reason I'm saying this, I'm trying to get you mentally prepared that if there is a violation, you're going to probably have to redo this whole project and do it in accordance with the code. But as I said, I just don't feel, I feel, well, I'm just going to say, I don't want to get reversed. So I don't want this to go to circuit court. So I'm going to continue this till next month. I'm going to have a meeting out there. Tell them exactly what you did. And it will either, and then we'll come back next month, and it'll either be a violation or it won't. But if it is a violation, as I said, it's gonna be a pretty harsh result for you. And I just want you to be prepared for that. All right, thank you. All right.

Thank you.

All right, the next, and it's actually two together. And so I'm going to call the first hearing case and then we'll do the second hearing case. It's case number CECase 2600719. The property owner is John McCall and the parcel ID number is 1003016734.

Good morning. I'm Blake Vi, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport. I have been sworn. For case number 26-00717 and for case number 26-00719, I'm going to have the City Attorney take over. Okay.

Kimberly Rubino, Assistant City Attorney. and i have been sworn uh your honor my understanding is at this point the respondent has performed that unity of title that was discussed at the last hearing and so there were deeds this is the first hearing case this is he's got another case so are we talking about ce case twenty six zero zero seven one nine uh So there was a unity of title that was filed for two properties, and then the property was deeded to another individual. So the issue that we have is now the respondent is no longer the property owner. So he does not have standing for either of his cases today. So we'd be asking for a continuance.

okay so you can get the current property owner in here yes all right did you get any objection to that no sir i don't all right how long do you think it'll take to get notice out to the current property owner um mr did she just stepped out do you have an opinion on that

I could probably book the case for August. July is almost done. Okay. But these cases would have to be with our normal procedures closed and we'd open a new one under the new ownership name.

Okay. So August.

So essentially you're asking me to dismiss these two cases and then you're going to refile against the current property owner?

For now, let's just say continuance and then we'll send notice of all of that.

OK, so we're going to continue these cases till August hearing, correct? All right. That's what we're going to do. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Are there any other? I think there's no more. Another one more. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Number seven. I'm sorry. Let's find it. Did we actually mark this one? All right, case number C, case 2600977. Property owner is Kelsey McCloud. The property address is 3790 Abba Lane. And this is a second hearing case.

I'm Josh Preston, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport and I have been sworn. Case number 26-00977 was initially inspected on March 27th, 2026 and was found in violation at the May 28th, 2026 hearing. There have been no changes to the property and I request you sign the order assessing the fines. I believe the property owner would like to say a few words.

All right, state your name for the record and you've been sworn?

Yes, Kelsey McLeod and yes, I've been sworn.

All right, and what do you want to say?

So I've cured the deficiency of the trash. Now we're just dealing with the windows. The problem that I'm having is those windows. I had a lawn scaping guy that was mowing my grass and he shot a rock through the window, which he offered to fix. He told me that he was licensed, which I didn't. did not verify his documents. He's recently been deported, so I'm at a standstill here. My current problem is I've been speaking to the city, but I'm out of financial hardship because I have two kids on disability, and I'm currently in and out of procedures for rheumatoid arthritis and slipped discs. So I'm currently going through disability and the process, and I'm just out of financial hardship to continue financially moving forward with permitting and things like that. So I just need an extension.

So the window we're talking about is this window that's just to the right of the front door? Several windows in the front there.

There's a couple windows in the front. Zoom in. You can see the two there on the left side, the one by the front door, and so those are all... Yep, it was the four in the front.

All four of them in front?

Yeah, over the past two years, yeah.

Okay.

Yep.

And... So no permit was ever issued for these? Correct. Not even applied for. And so the solution to this is an after the fact permit. What is the process for an after the fact permit? Yeah, he's still here.

Yeah, just a replacement of the four front windows in the house.

Good morning again, Kyle Hoffman, zoning coordinator. Unfortunately, I don't necessarily, I don't work in the building department for permits, but I do understand how that process works.

Okay.

For a building, for the window, they would have to provide the specs that were for the window. We would need the engineering sheet showing what it was, how it was being installed. The stickers would need to be on the windows and or still possible to be viewed for the windows. and they would need to just apply for the permit at that point in time for the building, through the building department. All right, so that's a lot.

Yes. Because based by your testimony, I mean, You don't even know how the windows were installed probably, right?

So I won't have that report. I do have the stickers for the product approval because those were bought through an actual window manufacturer.

Yeah, that's probably the easier of the two.

So she should still have product approval stickers that were on the window for product approval.

I do have pictures of them.

So you might still have the documents that show that product approval as well or potentially contact the company for those product approvals?

Yes.

But you would then have to apply through building and provide all that information to them?

Yeah, and I don't know enough about, I mean, from both the, is there, well, I'm going to ask you because you probably don't know, but is there a way to determine to see how these windows were installed without removing them?

I don't see a way.

Okay.

I don't see a way because it's a wood-built home, so we had to cut into the stucco to remove them, which...

There's nothing on the inside that can be removed around the frame that... Yeah, that would probably be the easiest, yes.

Yes.

Okay. Well, that's going to be your... I mean, yeah, I mean, hopefully you can do that. And then that together with providing the evidence of the manufacturer of the window and the sticker for the window... Again, I'm not saying that would satisfy the city.

Anything that she would have a requirement or questioning on what the inspection would be, after the hearing, more than welcome to come down to the lobby and the building department. We can help you. We can pull one of the inspectors up or the building official up so that they can actually speak to you on what would be inspected, what we would be looking for on an after the fact.

No problem. So... Yeah, so once I take the next step, you know, it's out of my hands. I have no control at that point in time. Only the City Commission has control at that point in time. So is this the first time that you've appeared on this case? Yes, sir. Yes. Can I ask you why you didn't appear before?

So I wasn't aware. My mailing address is different than the property address. Okay. So they mailed the violation the first time. The second time, they staked it.

So where the tax bill goes, then it's actually proper.

Yeah. I get the mail from there. Okay.

Um, plus it's clearly posted on the violation.

I received that because we have the trash removed. I don't know if it was removed with that, but I did receive the 2nd, 1 that was posted and that's how I was. I came down here in person after I received that and was made aware and I did speak to the supervisor. I believe it was you. after the first hearing to Kevin.

So I'm going to ask, again, if I say I'm going to sign the order, that's it. It can't come back to me. It's done. And you're here. The building department's in the same building.

Yes.

So my inclination is to continue this one month. I'm fine with that. Yeah, OK. While you're here today, go and will you go with her to go with her to because again, I think if there's an easy way. To, uh, to document how they were installed. You're probably golden, you know, if there isn't. They probably got to come out and get reinstalled. So, but you need to know the answer to that. I do. So, we'll continue this case till next month, which is on July 23rd.

Perfect. Thank you so much.

Yeah, if you get it all resolved, you won't have to come back. But, you know, if it's not resolved, but there's progress, come back and we'll talk about it. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Okay, now that's all. Okay, so the next one is CE case 2600828.

I'm Tony Breon, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I've been sworn. CD case 26-00828 was initially inspected on 3-18-26. For a certificate of zoning compliance, it was expired. This is on a vacant lot, Your Honor. I have three photos to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 2768 Doe Avenue.

I think you're in another file that's on a vacant lot. There you go.

Is that where that posting is? Oh, okay. Yes. It's the lot to the right.

Yes. Okay. All right. Got it. Okay. And basically it's a, is there, did they only get as far as the CCC and they never even broke out?

And they never broke it out. They've also been emailed. I also emailed them. I've had no answer as of yet. And really all they have to do is withdraw. They can just close it out, right? Right. So, I'm just waiting for an answer for them.

I haven't gotten well, maybe this will get their attention. I mean, I'm going to find there's a violation of 2.1 point for the unified land development code for this inspired permit for construction of a single family house. A fine of 25 dollars with a maximum of 2000 dollars will commence on July 21 of 2026. It's not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. All right, next is case, CE case 2600864. The property owner is D7 Northport, LLC. The property, partial ID number is 0990028508.

I'm Josh Preston, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn. CE case 26-00864 was initially inspected on March 25th, 2026. This addresses the ULDC section 2.1.4, the CZZ expired period of validity, which was applied for PCCC 25-02-521 for single family residence has expired. This has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on June 24th. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today, and I have one photograph to present as evidence. Basically, as you can see, that's where I placed the posting, which is a true and accurate description of the property located at 0 Houston Lane, Northport, which is property ID number 0990028508.

All right, there's a violation of section 2.1.4 of the Unified Land Development Code for this fire permit for a single family residence. This one also looks like it never broke ground. A fine of $25. Today, with a maximum of $2,000, we'll commence on July 21, 2026, if not brought to be applied by July 20 of 2026. Next is KCE case 2601047. The property owner is Bernice Rhodes. Parcel ID number is 0969066012. We're locating the inspector. Give us one moment, please. Okay. Did he come back to this one? Yeah, we can come back to this one. I believe so. Okay. All right. Let's make sure we come back to this one. All right. Next is CE case 2601092. The property owner is Rinaldo Ortiz and the property address is 2951 Crane Avenue.

I am Josh Preston, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. CE case 26-01092 was initially inspected on April 6th, 2026. This is addressing Northport City Code 59-1B1, prohibited parking in the city right-of-way. which that has come into compliance. The second being North Port City Code 59-1B4, prohibited parking of an inoperable vehicle. There's an Orange International SUV, which appears inoperable at this time, parked and stored in the driveway. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently as of the June 22nd. I have not had contact, or I have had contact with the property owner previously who advised me she was trying to sell it. However, that's been months ago and it's still there. I have three photographs.

It's a valuable vehicle.

Very classic. I've had three photographs to present as evidence. The photographs are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 2951 Crane Avenue.

And this William Kinney, field supervisor, we just want to make sure that we're also finding the violation of the adjudication, even though it's in compliance for the city right-of-way parking, just in case we do have future issues.

All right. Okay, so as to the violation, I'm going to, as to Code Section 59-1B1, the prohibited parking, which was the Toyota Corolla that was parked in the city right-of-way, We've got a file that is in compliance as of today, but that again, based upon this photograph, it was previously not in compliance. Then as to, I am going to file a violation of 59-1B4 of Norfolk City Code for this inoperable international scalp that's parked in the driveway. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on July 21 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. Again, he'll find a buyer for that. There's lots of buyers for that. Okay, so now we're going to go back to CE case 26-01047. Property owner is Bernice Rhodes. Parcel ID number is 0969066012. Which case is that? This is the Peg case. It's on a vacant lot. What case is that?

I am Robert Harrelson. I have been sworn code enforcement inspector city of Northport. CE case number 2601047 was initially inspected on 4-2-26. Violation of the scripts and prohibited activities Violation 3.7.3D ULDC. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions. Most recently on 06-23-26 at 10.45 a.m. I have six photos depicting the violations. They're true and accurate.

Okay, and this is a residentially zone lot, not Niagara cultural zone. All right. So I am going to file a violation of section 3.7.3 D of the. For this. for maintaining this pig and not a pot-bellied pig, but a hog-type pig on this property, this residentially zoned property. A fine of $25 a day for the maximum of $2,000 will commence on July 22 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by July 20, 2026. Next is CEK 2601122. The property owner is Enrique Ruiz and Jose Beltran. And the property address is 8616 Portobello Avenue.

I am Blake Vi, Co-Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 26-01122 was initially inspected on 4-7-26. This is addressing the violation of 70-56H, NPCC assigned numbers. Assigned numbers are missing on the house. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 6-24-26. I have not had contact with the property owner 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 8616 Porterville Ave.

I'm going to apply that there is a violation of Section 70-56H of the Norfolk City Code with no assigned numbers visible from the street. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on July 21, 2026, if not brought into compliance by July 20, 2026. Next is CE-K-26-0115-0. The property owner is Oyged SRQ LLC. The property address is 2467 Allsup Terrace.

I'm George White, Code Enforcement Inspector with the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. CE-26-0115-0 was initially inspected on 4-9-26. The case is a violation of 42 point, I should have said dash 24A5, NPCC, maintenance and storm water drainage area, junk trash and debris on the right-of-way, and in violation 59.1B1, NPCC, prohibited parking on the right-of-way, utility trailer parked on the right-of-way. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions Most recently on 6-17-26, I have five photos to present as evidence. These photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 2467 Allsup Terrace.

All right, I'm going to find there is a violation of section 42-2485 of the Norfolk City Code for this debris that's sitting in the stormwater drainage area. Fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on July 21 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. I'm also going to file a violation of Section 59-1B1 of the North Port City Code for this utility trailer and looks like, is the boat gone or is it still there too?

The boat is gone.

Okay, so the utility trailer is parked in the right-of-way. Fine of $10 a day with a maximum $1,000 will commence on July 21 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. Next case is CD case 2601182. The property owner is Zara Property Group, LLC. The property address is 5893 Mayberry Avenue.

I am Blake by code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport and I've been sworn case number two six dash zero one one eight two was initially inspected on four nine two six. This case is addressing the violation of IP MC two zero two one three oh two point seven accessory structures with the fence that's in disrepair. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions. Most recently on 62326. I have not had contact with the property owner. I have 2 photos to present as evidence. The photos are true and accurate depiction of the property located at 5893 Mayberry Ave. Okay, so there's like, yeah, there's like a hole in the fence, right? Yes, sir.

Okay. All right. Okay. I'm going to find that there is a violation of 2021 section 302.7. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum $1,000 will commence on July 21, 2026. It's not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. Next is case, CE case 2601185. The property owners are Michael and Erin Conrath and the property address is 3520 Abbotsford Street.

I'm Josh Preston, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport and I have been sworn. CE case 26-01185 was initially inspected on April 10th, 2026. The case is addressing the violation of Northport City Code 70-56H assigned numbers. The residence is missing the number five and the series of 3520. And Northport City Code 59-1B1 prohibited parking in the city right of way where a boat on a trailer is parked or stored in the city right of way. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently as of June 22nd. I have had contact with a property owner as recent as yesterday. He made contact with me advising that everything's still there and he would try to get everything resolved before the next 25 days, which I ask that you find it in violation and set the, set everything up for the next hearing for him to be in compliance by.

I will find that there is a violation of section 70 dash 56 age in the report city code for failure. I have the full assigned numbers visible from the street. There's a missing digit. I find a 10 dollars a day with a maximum of 1000 dollars will commence on July 21 of 2026. If not brought into compliance by July, 2020. 26. And I also find a violation of section 59-1B1 in the Norfolk City Code for prohibited parking this boat and trailer that's parked and stored in this city right away. A fine of ten dollars a day with a maximum one thousand dollars will commence on July 21 of 2026 if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. Next case is CE case 26-01218. The property owners are Curtis Bruce Cool and Carol Teddrow and the property address is 4634 Payne Street.

Yeah. Per Code Enforcement Manager, Governor Raducci, he requests that be continued, please, until next month, as we're currently trying to resolve that issue.

Okay. We'll continue this case to the July 23rd, 2026 hearing. Next is case number CE Case 2601270. The property owner is Ronnie Mazur, and the property address is 7525 Pasadena Drive.

I'm Robert Harrelson, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn to case number 2601270, was initially inspected on 4-15-26. The case is addressing the violation of assigned numbers, violation 70-56H, Northport City Code. Property hasn't been inspected on multiple occasions, but it's recently 6-24-26 at 12-30-26. I have three photos the president has evidenced. Photos are true and accurate depiction of the property located at 7525 Taxco Drive, Northport, Florida. And there has been no changes.

All right, so I'm going to find a violation of section 70 dash 56 age of Northport city code. There's no sign numbers on the house visible from the street of fine of 10 dollars a day with a maximum 1000 dollars will commence on July 21, 2026. If not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. Next is CEK 2601307. Property owner is SPFTJ Management, LLC. The property address is 2373 Yalta Terrace.

I am Josh Preston, code enforcement inspector for the city of North Port, not Happens Foreign. CE case 26-01307 was initially inspected on April 20th, 2026. This case is addressing the violation of ULDC section 2.1.4. expired certificate of zoning compliance, period of validity. PC, the permit 24-00007928 has expired as of July of 2025. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently as of June 22nd, 2026. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today, and I have two photographs to present as evidence, which depict an accurate depiction of the property located at 2373 Yalta Terrace, North Porto.

It looks like they got the silt fence up and then they stopped.

They stopped right there.

Alright, we're going to find there's a violation of section 2.1.4 of the ULDC for this expired permit for this property. A fine of $25 with a maximum of $2,000 will commence on July 21 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. Next is C.E.K. 's 2601320. Property owner is Lila Lisker and the property address is 5102 Escalante Drive.

I'm Josh Preston, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport and I have been sworn. CE case 26-01320 was initially inspected on April 22nd, 2026. This case addresses the violation of Florida Building Code R4501.17.3 residential swimming pool barrier requirement, pool and eye areas missing screening, and presents a public safety hazard. IPMC 302.7, accessory structures, exterior property areas, the white fence in the rear of the property has several sections that have fallen, and the overall condition of the fences and disrepair imposes, again, a public safety threat. IPMC 302.1, sanitation, exterior property areas. The swimming pool is also in an unsafe and unsanitary condition. And IPMC 304, exterior structures being the roof, unsafe condition, the roof fascia is missing in sections and wood is exposed to the elements creating deterioration of the structural integrity of the roof. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently as of June 22nd, 2026. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today, and I have 11 photographs to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 5102 Escalante Drive, North Port, Florida.

All right, so the last one of these is I know that's the big one. The first one, I think, is I'm going to need some help here with the fines. I mean, but the last one is going to kind of take care of everything. The first one is a $50, you know, maximum $5,000. The next two, the IMPC 2021-3027, what's the fine? Okay. And then the next one, the 302.1, okay. Yeah, so it's, okay. So we've got two of those. Obviously the last one is also that. All right. Okay, this looks kind of like a zombie house. Yeah, so I'm going to find that there's a violation of. Our 4,501.17 of the Florida building code for this unsafe pool. A fine of $50 a day with a maximum of $5,000 will commence on July 21. of 2026 if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. I'm going to find that there's a violation of the IPMC 2021 section 302.7 for this white fence that is in, in poor repair and poses a safety hazard. A fine of ten dollars a day with a maximum one thousand dollars will commence on July 21

of 2026 if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026.

I'm going to find that there's a violation of the IPMC 2021 section 302.1 for this swimming pool that's in an unsafe and unsanitary condition. A fine of $250 a day with no max will commence on July 21 of 2026 if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. And then I'm going to find that there's a violation of Section 304.1.1 of the IPMC for the unsafe condition on this house, the fascia missing, all kinds of issues with the roof. Basically, you can tell the effect it's going to, if it hasn't already affected, it's starting to affect the structural integrity of the house. A fine of $250 a day with no max. will commence on July 21 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. Next is case CE case 2601321. The property owner is CPI slash Amherst SFR program owner LLC. The property address is 4164 Cuthbert Avenue.

I'm Josh Preston, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. CE case 26-01321 was initially inspected on April 22nd, 2026. This case is addressing the violation of Northport City Code 59-1B4, prohibited parking of an inoperable vehicle. There's a dark gray Chevrolet SUV that's in the state of disrepair in the driveway. And North Port City Code 59-1C1, prohibited parking limitations. There's an orange and tan Ford SUV with a yellow Sea-Doo, personal watercraft attached to it, parked in the front yard on an unimproved surface. The property is inspected on multiple occasions, most recently as of June 22nd, 2026. It should be noted this property is currently in compliance. However, I ask that you find the violation on both. We've had multiple cases, previous cases, this year alone on that same residence and we need to tighten this up.

All right, so I'm going to make a finding that that as to Section 59-1B4 of the North Port City Code, it is in compliance as of today. This was an inoperable vehicle, the Chevrolet SUV in the parking lot. Again, it's in compliance today, but the evidence presented shows that it was not in compliance as of May 12th of 2026. And likewise, with Section 59-1C1 in the North Port City Code, while it's in compliance as of today, the photographs that were taken April 24 of 2026 shows basically a large golf cart, I guess I would call it, and a 4x4 vehicle. parked on an unimproved surface in the front yard, and then on a different date, a vehicle with a trailer and a Sea-Doo personal watercraft parked there. So again, in compliance as of today, but as of those dates that it was not in compliance. Next is case number C, case 2601375. The property owner is GZ Installation, LLC. Partial ID is 1149211816.

I am Tony Breon, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I've been sworn. CE case 26-01375 was initially inspected on 4-28-2026. The violation description is for accumulation of debris 42-23 MPCC. We also have permit required, violation 105.1 for the COVID not being installed. You also have the CCZ required. And our last one we have is the 3.7.7 ULDC fence on vacant property. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 6-24-26. I have five photos to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at Grenard Circle. Okay.

Just give me a second here. I know there was changes in the fencing. The type of fence here is not the fence that's permitted on these lots, is that? Correct. Is the fence the unpermitted structure or is there another unpermitted structure that I just need to identify it for me?

The fence? The fence is the fact that it's covered. You can't see through it. Also, they're not supposed to have anything, any prop, any trailers or anything on that property at this time.

Right. But they're not technically structures, but so it's the 3rd violation. It's really the fence that you're. Yes.

Okay.

All right. Okay. I'm going to find that there's a violation of. Section 42 23 in the Norfolk city code for accumulation debris, all this stuff that's, you know, in the basically in and around the. the drainage area. A fine of ten dollars a day with a maximum one thousand dollars will commence on July 21 of 2026 if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. Um, I'm going to find a violation of section 105.1 of the forward building code for no permit for this culvert that uh has been installed in the um the the swale or the storm water area of the city, a, uh, fine of $50 a day with a maximum of $5,000 will commence on July 21 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. And then I'm going to find there's a violation of Section 2.2.5 of the ULDC for no permit for this, this fence that is constructed on the property. A fine of $25 a day with a maximum of $2,000 will commence on July 21 of 2026 if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. And then I'm going to find there's a violation of Section 3.7.7 uh, that point G of the ULDC for the improper, uh, type of fence, uh, to be put on these vacant lots. A fine of $25 a day with a maximum of $2,000 will commence on July 21, 2026, if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. Okay, next case is KCE case 2601391. The property owner is Nicolo D'Amelio and Amy Rella. Property address is 7027 D Beretta Road.

Robert Harrelson, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport and I have been sworn. CE case 26-01391 was initially inspected on 4-29-26. This case is addressing the violations of prohibited parking limitations, violation 5-6- correction 5-9-1 C-1-N-P-C-C, and also violation of description of permit required, violation 105.1 Florida Building Code, permit required. Also, certificate of zoning compliance, CCZ required, in violation of Section 22.5 ULDC. This property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently 6-24-26 at 11 o'clock, or 2-11 p.m., excuse me. I have eight photos to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 70270 Britta Road in Northport, Florida. And there has been no changes. There has been one change to the trailer. The camper was moved from the front to the back.

But it's still there?

Yeah.

Okay. All right. So I'm going to file a violation of 59-1C1 of the Northport City Code for You know, allow parking essentially, there's, I guess, a 2 total. Well, there's. Yeah, 2 total vehicles, RV and this trailer that's been moved around 5 to 10 dollars a day with a maximum 1000 dollars will commence on July 21 of 2026. if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. I'm going to find a violation of 1. 05.1 of the Florida Building Code. Again, there's development activity that's occurring on this lot. There's no, there's no permits for it. So a fine of $50 a day with a maximum of $5,000 will commence on July 21 of 2026 if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. And likewise, again, there's development activity without you know, um, any permitting, uh, I find a violation of section 2.2.5 of the ULDC, uh, for, uh, no CZZ for this site development that's occurring on the property. Combined $25 a day with a maximum of $2,000 will commence on July 21, 2026 if not brought into compliance by July 20 of 2026. I got the $50 and the $5,000 in there, right? Okay. At the end of the day, I'm getting tired. Okay. As all first hearing cases going to second hearing cases, and again, all I need to know is that, you know, still, still in the same condition. There's been no change. First one is CE case 26-00235. Property owner is Robert Sr. and Juanita Fulton. Property address is 1076 Savia Street.

I am Josh Preston, code enforcement inspector for City of North Portland. I have been sworn. There are no changes to this property. I request you sign the order assessing the fine.

I will sign the order assessing the fine. Next is DEK 2600393. Property owner is Sharon Berhow, in Christopher Pounds. Property address is 5942 Trumpet Street.

I am Robert Harrelson, code enforcement inspector for City of North Portland. I have been sworn. 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 2600498. The property owner is Steven Scullick, and the property address is 85. Oh, 2, uh, Gail yard Avenue.

I am Blake fight code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport and I've been sworn case number 26 dash 0, 0, 4, and 8 was found in violation at the 5, 20, 26 hearing. There have been no changes to the property and I request that you sign the order assessment. Fine.

I will sign the order assessing the fine. Next is CE Case 2600790, the property owners Trey and Autumn Sloan. The property address is 6644 Hornbuckle Boulevard.

I am Robert Harrelson, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of North Florida. I have been sworn. 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 2600852, Property owner is Steven C. Jr., still a life estate. The property address is 6315 Berela Street.

I'm Robert Harrelson, Code Enforcement Inspector of the City of North Portland. I have been sworn. There have been no changes to the property in our request. Do you sign the order? Assessing the fine.

The next one I've got is CE case 26-00-931. Property owner is Andrew Marina Panasieck, and the property address is 1338 Jabara Avenue.

I'm Tony Brown, court enforcement inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. CE case 26-00-931 was initially inspected on 3-25-26. There's been no changes to the property at this time. or you can assess the fine.

I will sign the order assessing the fine. Next is CE case 2600942. Property owner is Fernando Formida III, and the property address is 2398 Redstone Avenue.

I am Tony Grillon, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I've been sworn CE case 26-00942 was initially inspected on 3-25-26. There's been no changes to the property at this time. You can assess the fine.

I will sign the order assessing the fine. Did I miss any? Just give us one second here just to double check and make sure we didn't miss any. All right, and there's no public comment cards filled out, so it is 1101 AM and we are adjourned. Thank you.