Code Enforcement Hearing - public_hearing

And if everyone would please stand and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. You may be seated. We have no public comment cards filled out. Approval of minutes, are there any corrections to the minutes of the June 25, 2026 code enforcement hearings? Hearing no corrections, those minutes are approved. In just a moment, everyone who is going to speak, the clerk will ask you to stand and the clerk will administer the oath. This is a quasi-judicial process. I know everyone, they say everyone's greatest fear is public speaking, but don't worry, we'll get through this. I don't bite. Just take some deep breaths and you'll get through this. The city presents their case first. They put on their case to show that there is a violation. Then then I will go to the owner and the owner then gets to. They can ask questions of the city of anyone who testified on the part of the city. They don't have to, but they can, or they can just explain. either why they believe they are not in violation or everything except tree cases or land clearing cases, which are, there's only one hearing on those types of cases. Every other hearing is a two-step process. The first hearing determines if there is a violation or not. If I make a determination that there is a violation, then I set a timeframe to bring it into compliance and a date in which fines would commence if it's not in compliance by that date. Sometimes the property owner will say, I know I'm not in compliance, it's going to take me this long to bring it into compliance and I hear that kind of testimony. Also, and this is something I've just recently started saying is that this is this is your day to present your defense to these cases. You know, sometimes people think. I'm like. I know everything that the Code Enforcement Department knows. I don't. I hear these cases today. I'm not supposed to know anything. I'm independent from the City of Northport. Sometimes I've heard testimony, well I've got this letter from the City and they kind of assume that I have access to that. I don't have access to any of that unless you present it into the record during the hearing It's not going to get into the record. So, so if you don't have that, and you want to run home and get get it, we'll provide you a little bit of time to do that. So, and you can talk to the person who checked you in to do that. So. That is the basic procedure. Oh, and then to finish up then, I typically, I go back to the city. They get, again, after you've testified, they have the right to ask you questions. And then I give it to the owner for the last word. And then after that, I close the case, close the hearing on that case. And typically, I issue my ruling at that point in time. There's been some rare occasions when I have reserved, when I really want to think through my decision, but usually I rule on the spot. So that, we still have a few more people signing in. We'll get those cards up here. Oh, the other thing I wanted to say is, for the most part, your case is going to be heard, you know, based upon the order that you signed up. But there's a few little exceptions to that is we do have some city staff here. We're going to run the cases that require city staff, additional city staff besides code enforcement. And then, and then we'll take the cases in the order that they were signed up in. So, at this point in time, the clerk will 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're about to provide is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge to help you God? I do. Thank you. All right.

And then we're going to, when we get to compliant cases that are not already listed, we'll just acknowledge those at that time. You don't need to read any additional compliant cases, do you?

It's up to you. That was to make it easier, but if you wanted to... No, no, no.

I'm just saying for the ones that are not listed... In the agenda. Okay. Okay. All right. So the first hearing will be case number CE case 2601619. The property owner is Justine Cavender and the personal ID number is 1128227619 and this is a land clearing case. And whenever the city is ready, they may begin. Oh yeah, that's the other thing I forgot. The property owner comes to this podium over here, and the city goes to that podium over there.

Good morning. I am Kevin LaPointe, code inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. CE case 26-01619 was initially inspected on 5-20-2026. The case is addressing the violation of tree protection regulations, violation 2-511.NPCC, land clear without proper permitting. I'm submitting eight photos. City Arborist review date was 5-26-2026. The number of trees that were removed are unknown. Heritage Champion tree number is unknown. Estimated total fine amount is 12,000. Undetermined impact lanes area square foot was 8,000 on a 10,000 square foot lot. The arborist visited a property located at PD number 112-822-7619. It appears that portion of the property has been cleared without proper authorization. The property was approximately 80% cleared. The unified land development code looks to account for a $15,000 fine when we were fine where we are unable to determine the amount of trees removed or a portion thereof. The mitigation fee for removing 80% of the trees and vegetation on the property would be about $12,000. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions and most recently on 6-16 of 2026. I have had no phone contact with the property owner prior to today.

All right, and then this is residentially zoned. Yeah, I see here. Yes, zoned with it. Residential, okay. All right, and as you heard, and then do you want the arborist to testify now or in the rebuttal? Sure. Sure, go ahead.

Okay, my name is Jeremy, City of Northport, arborist. I have been sworn, Jeremy Rogas.

Is there anything else you want to add? No, that's already been said. Okay. All right. So again, you heard the first words out of their mouth was their name and they've been sworn. So again, everyone on this side, if you'll remember to do that, because we have some people coming in late, so we may have to swear those people in that came in late, but go ahead.

My name is Justine Cavender and I'm under oath.

Okay.

I love your name, by the way, Justine. Good morning. Sorry. Yeah. Thank you for saying the nervous part. Cause I'm not used to this setting. So yes, that is my property. And when I had received the violation, I was very surprised because I have not cleared any land. My sister and I actually acquired these properties. I have, she has the one next to me, the one above 18 and I have lot 19 in March. And so I thought it might have been an accident because the lot next to mine has had someone living on it with an RV and And lots of trash and I was like, oh, maybe they thought it was them who had cleared some land without permitting. So I. Went out there to take pictures and videos to try to prepare myself for this case and sure enough. The land was cleared and so I was very surprised because I had not done anything and. So as I was walking the property, I noticed that there was definitely like a bulldozer out there. There's huge tracks and such. And there's also evidence of a fire. And so I took some videos and I was like, man, like. I don't really know what happened out here. I don't know why someone would come and clear a random lot out in the middle of Northport. And because that generally costs money and I don't see why they would do that. So I kind of took a long shot and I called the Northport Fire Department and I asked them if they had any records of any fires that had happened out here. And there's actually one that they do have on file and it was on 5-19 of 2026. And they had a fire start from some piles of trash on a neighboring lot, or they said that was on my lot, which I was not aware of. And they had fire department out. They said the owner was on site for it, and so I'm assuming the lot next to it. And they actually did bring the 4FFS, which is the Florida Fire Service, I believe. with the bulldozer to push some of the trees and such into piles to secure the perimeter. And I do have a copy of that as well.

I don't know if I- Sure, if you'll hand that to the clerk, and the clerk after, if you'll pass it on to me.

I highlighted a couple of the items that were showing that they had a fire with some trash and then he had exhibited a picture that was showing a lot and you could see. Like, on a lot next to mine, some white and those are trash and then he used to have an RV and the RV was gone and then on the very, very back of that page. Um, is I have the picture that was referenced on the screen of the lot and you can see where, like, the white is and then there's like, a little vehicle. And then on, I think on my side, it even shows, like, I think a little shed of some sort. And in the report, it says that the fire was started from trash burning and the only thing is, is in this area, it's really hard to pinpoint an exact location. So, when they have the address listed on the report, it's 3043 88 silver lead road. And mine is zero Silverleaf Road right now. But when you type that address into the GPS on the very last page of the packet that I have for you, the one that's pinned in large is where it's showing the fire happened. But the smaller pin is where my property is located. And so if I'm just being honest, they don't match up quite degree, like 100%. Right. even on this picture, it's off of Marbury Road and not directly off of Silverleaf. And so I do believe it is just a mistake. There's just lots out there and a lot of clear land. But I was hoping that this fire report would show that I don't think it was me clearing the land. I think that the Florida Fire Service came out to extinguish the fire. And then put those into piles as well.

Yeah, well, 1st, in a distant moment. Yes, I'm going to. I'm going to look at this and they're just going to look at it just for admissibility, which is again.

Okay.

Yeah. But 1 question you may have to answer this. And looking at this, this GPS map. and this is oriented north what's weird is it looks like there's silverleaf road then it makes a turn and then Uh, there small very road. And then and but then this pin still has it called silver leaf.

Well, that's so I typed the exact address from the fire report into there to see if it was going to show. It's very close, but that's where it pins on my GPS when I type that address. Okay.

So, at this point in time, I'm just going to let the city staff look at this and just again, I'm just asking. You know, just for is it relevant to the case? Is it. Is it related to this property? And if so, then, you know, it'll come into the record and then. And it sounds like then we have another city staff person who wants to say something and also you, I think I think that. You have not talked to anyone from the city about this today.

No, I unfortunately work. Well, it's a good grateful to work, but I work a lot. And so at the 1st, couple of letters that were delivered to my home, I actually missed. And so I contacted, I talked to someone in email, and I believe I sent an email to Jay. Joshua Presson was the initial email I had gotten, and then Kevin LaPointe took over when I, because I responded to the email saying, hello, I don't know anything about any bulldozing. I've never gotten a violation before, and my email didn't say a time or date.

But this document from the fire service, is this the first time anyone, that they've seen that?

Oh, yes.

Okay, all right. So I'm going to give you some time. First of all, let's just talk about the admissibility. Sure. And no problem with it coming into the record?

No, no problem at all. All right. And actually, the city would, just after reviewing this, we would dismiss this case. OK.

Okay so yeah and again this is this is the first time this has come up you know um so yeah based upon the testimony of the city staff uh this case will be dismissed. Okay that's that's it. Okay thank you so much. All right this will go into the record though you don't get this back. Okay I'll have a copy. Okay all right thank you.

I'm all set?

You're all set.

Thank you so much and everyone have a beautiful day.

All right, next case is CE case 2601218. The property owner is Curtis Busgool and Carol Tedrow, and the property address is 4634 Payne Street.

I'm nervous no matter what. Okay, again, we won't bite.

And this is a case where the building official is going to testify. So whenever the city is ready, they may begin.

I'm Josh Preston, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 26-01218 was initially inspected on April 13th, 2026. This case is addressing the violation of building code 105.1, permit required for a seawall that's located in the rear of the property. The property's been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently as of July 6th, 2026. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today and I have four photographs To present as evidence, the photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 4634 Payne Street. And this case was actually brought to us by Mike Vork of Public Works, who is also here to.

So just to remind myself, this is a photo from the other side of the canal looking back. Is that the seawall that's in question, what I see right there? That's correct.

Mike, I believe you took those photographs, correct?

All right. All right. I have a lot of pictures.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, he'll be sworn in and say that his name and that he's been sworn. Yeah, you'll need to be. So, anyone that did not get sworn before the clerk will now administer the oath to those people. Okay, go ahead.

Can everyone wish you to provide testimony? Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you sort of affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, so help you God? I do.

All right. So again, I'll state your name for the record. I know you've been sworn. You don't have to say that.

Michael Vork.

Okay. All right. And then you were starting to say something. And I think it was, you're the person who took the photographs?

Yes. I believe that might be one of the photographs I've taken, yeah. Okay.

Again, I'm just trying to worry myself. So is that a photograph taken from the opposite side of the canal, looking back at the seawall in question?

It appears to be, yes. Okay.

All right. Okay. Anything else you want to say, or?

No. No, other than that it was installed without the permitting. Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Again, you have the right to, well, first of all, again, state your name for the record and that you've been sworn.

Kurt Byskowl. I'm actually from Michigan, but I snowboard down here and I'm not sure what else to say. I have a bunch of pictures also.

Okay, if you want them into the record, just I would love to show them. Okay. Just walk, walk across, walk them across here. Just let them take a look at them. Because I'm going to ask that same question if they. As long as they represent the property, you know, it can go into the record. Yeah. Billy will walk them over for you.

And don't walk your meniscus.

It's not fun. And I understand anything that goes into the record. You don't get back. Okay. Do you want them to go into the record? I guess it is what it is. Okay. Yeah, I mean, they have to go into the record.

I also have a bunch of support letters, neighborhood Go ahead.

Well, yeah, okay. So let them look at these first and then the next thing, Billy will come back and he'll get those and take them back.

The support letters, we may have an argument on relevancy. Doesn't look like they represent the property. No. This does not look like the property that we're talking about here.

Well, there's two packets. There's one that I took pictures of. The lake of what other people have done, it was marked on the envelope. So, this is not your pictures strictly.

I understand that if other people have done that, have installed the walls on the lake, and they did it with a permit. I mean, the issue here is not that whether or not they did it or didn't do it. It's that. Unless you have evidence that they installed these seawalls without a permit.

That wasn't my purpose.

Okay. Yeah.

It's what they did. They threw old blocks, bricks. They used wood. It's been there forever. It's very unsightly. There's docks that have been there for four hurricanes just

Well, again, the issue here is whether or not this structure was constructed without a permit. So the aesthetics of this one versus that one, I'm going to have to tell you, is probably not really relevant to the case that's before me.

Other than it being of his property?

I'm sorry, I can't hear you because they're, let him finish talking and then you can talk.

Yeah, that's definitely the same.

And so, and again, for the city, so again, this is not like, it's not like a jury situation, you know, if something comes in, but it has very little weight. Yeah, I will take that into consideration. Um. Yeah, these are kind of relaxed rules of evidence here. So sometimes I don't sweat close calls. I just let it in and then I give little weight to it.

So we would object to the other people's versions to save erosion packet of photos. And we do not have any objection to erosion fence picks.

OK. Let me take a look at the one that you've got the objection to.

Do you want me to hand both?

Just hand them to the clerk. Yeah, that one. Yeah, hand me both. Hand me the one that you've got the objection on. OK, so I've looked at these photos. First of all, I want to make sure you understand what their objection is. So their objection is that, again, I'm not a public policy decision maker. I apply the facts presented to the law. And the law is that to do what you've done here, you have to have a permit. And so their objection to this is on relevancy, because it has nothing to do with the case that's before me. And again, as I said before, it is relaxed rules of evidence. I agree with the city. These photographs are not relevant to the case that's before me today. So you can have those back. Those will not go into the record. Now let me take a look at the ones where there is, there's no objection to these, correct? Okay.

And I apologize. I did not say Kimberly Rubino, assistant city attorney. I have been sworn.

Okay. And I apologize for kind of jumping back and forth a little. This would appear to be, again, it's not like a situation where someone has built an entire room and put electrical in it, which makes it more difficult to do an after the fact permit. Is there someone here that can tell me what the process would be to obtain an after the fact permit for this?

Yes.

Okay. Let me, let me know.

Number one, that a seawall structure would not be permitted at this location. We would use a riprap embankment instead. That would be permittable for the erosion control that Mr. Buskuhl is looking to construct.

Okay. Well that's okay. So that's important information because you know if it was permittable then the simple solution is just go downstairs and get a permit but they're telling you that this particular form of structure is not going to be permittable so do you understand that i built that pretty well one thing i have an engineering plan and a

bill lead plan that was done by a firm here. Okay.

Do you want that to go into the record? Sure. Okay. Let them take a look at that. Before you actually look at that, give me the rationale for why this would not be permittable.

Governor, before we go into that, I'm still going to have to object because the only thing the city has to prove today is that the respondent built this structure without a permit. We do not have to prove any of these other aspects of the case.

Let me ask you, did you attempt to get an after-the-fact permit for this?

No, because I have had really no communication. Originally, I googled, do you need a fence permit? and that said under six foot, and I copied that off too, by the way, and it said you did not need a permit anymore to put a fence up as long as it was six foot or less. I thought I was golden. The lake has been down for the last two years, and I thought it was an opportune time. I have probably lost five feet of land erosion, and I'm trying to protect, I think there's five trees that are getting very close to going in. And I don't want to lose those trees.

Well, I'm going to tell you what the easiest decision for me to make today is. the easiest decision for me today is just to make a determination of was there or was there not a permit for this structure, then you can attempt to get a permit if I determined that it was constructed without a permit. It sounds like based upon your testimony, it was constructed without a permit. So that's what's going to happen. Then this is a case where there will be a second hearing. A date will be set to bring it in compliance. And then you come back, and then we have the argument that was about to start right now, which is, is the city somehow being unreasonable and not issuing you an after the fact permit. That's what my inclination is to eat this elephant one bite at a time and just make a decision today, set a future date for compliance, and then we'll fight that other fight down the road. Well, I don't know who wants to go first.

Well, I think that I just want to be clear that if you found him in violation for what the city has to prove by ponderance of the evidence, the second hearing, if he does not come into compliance is only to set the fine amount. It is not to determine whether the city is being reasonable or unreasonable when you're applying code, which, as we just stated, was whether or not the structure was built with or without a permit.

I would tend to disagree with that if he says I went down. I tried to. I tried to bring into the compliance. I mean, it's a it's a little bit different story when the city still has a dog in the fight. You know we don't.

We're applying the code evenly to every citizen that's sitting in this room and every citizen of Northport.

Well, so you're at you're saying let's let's get into the whole thing today.

No, I'm not asking you to apply the code as it is written.

Well, you can make that argument at second hearing. Don't make it now. All right. Again, my inclination is, based upon the testimony, is to find that there is a violation today to set a date to bring into compliance. The way you bring this into compliance will be twofold. Well, yeah, twofold. One is you go, you apply for a permit, a permit is issued. If the permit is not issued, and I'm going to make the ruling right now, we will have that argument at the second hearing. Or the other way you bring and you install, you get a permit for some kind of a structure or some kind of protection to the shoreline that you can obtain a permit for. So I'm gonna give you the last word if there's anything else you wanna say.

We did apply for a permit and Gabby, I can't think of her last name. I couldn't even pronounce it. And I guess they discussed it and he refused to give a permit. When he came to my house, he looked at it and within 15 seconds, he says, I'm not giving you a permit. Tear it out. That was his exact words.

Okay. So that earlier you testified that you didn't apply for a permit.

I didn't apply the trying to figure out, um, There's an engineering firm here, and I was in Michigan. She kind of took over this a little bit for me because of my distance, and she was the one that was in contact with Mike, is it? They hatched a little back and forth, I guess, and then he refused the permit. So it was asked for.

Now, when I first heard it- When you say asked for, did you actually file a permit application?

She asked and he apparently said, It won't be accepted. So I really don't know what the look like.

But you didn't get a formal rejection because you didn't make a formal permit application.

Well, I'm not sure about the legalities.

This is all verbal?

Correct. OK. It's the information I got from Gabby by way of phone. I've never even met her. All right. Anything else you want to say? But I have the site plan and stuff here. To tear that out would be devastating. I even have a letter because- Again,

And I hate this. My job today is to determine if there's a violation because there's a structure here that doesn't have a permit. And that's all I'm going to decide today. As I've said, and the city disagrees with me, but I've told the city what my position is, we're going to have that fight at the next hearing. If for some reason, and again, you have choices. I'm not telling you how to bring this into compliance. There's multiple ways to bring this into compliance. But if you choose a particular path, and again, if the city still has some control over that particular path to compliance, we will talk about that at the next hearing. If you choose another path that the city does not have any say in, other than issuing a permit for a different kind of structure, then it will be a different argument. But basically, you'll just come in and say, I've applied for a permit. They've issued the permit for a different structure and you're in compliance. So, as I say, there's multiple paths to compliance here. There's not just one. And 1 of them is going to. Cause us to have another argument over it. So. Anything else you want to say before I move? Yes.

Okay. If I was made to tear that out, that would be devastating. I would be losing more than what I'm trying to save, and I'm trying to save my property.

Do you understand we're not having that argument today?

I know. As long as I had my minute, I wanted to at least save it. Okay. All right. Now, how do I apply for an after-the-fact permit then?

Is the building official here just to describe?

It would be a certificate of zoning compliance that you applied for originally that was denied was because of the location and the materials used. You can reapply with the proper type of seawall that's going to be put there but it has to meet those requirements for where you're trying to put it at so the one that you or your engineer submitted before was submitted but then it was denied based on the location and what was used there so you can reapply it just has to meet those codes okay so so he did make a formal application there was a formal application you know a formal application was also denied okay do you understand that so you you didn't think that happened but it happened

There's one more thing I'd like to throw in. It was, what do you call the buffer that goes around the lake? Easement. And he brought that up also, apparently. And FPL is the only utility that goes around the lake there. And I have a letter of their approval also, an email, a copy. They said, no problem. And I'm happy to show that to you. And that was one of his worries, apparently, that I was in an easement. And there's no, there's no problem. Because I actually talked with FPL and then they sent me a, I told them the whole story also. And they sent me a letter and I'm happy to show it to you.

Well, we don't have any violations.

The way I see it, that's for the next hearing. Because as I said, I'm not directing you exactly how to bring this into compliance. I'm just going to set a date for compliance. And then you get to choose how you want to bring it into compliance. What Mr. Kitty said is one method, potentially, if it's successful, to bring it into compliance. It's not the only method to bring it into compliance. So, I'm going to give you 1 last word and then I'm going to rule.

I don't know what else to say. I just think it would be a shame. To undo, because I would lose more land that what I'm trying to say, and I would like to know 1 question I do.

So you have. You have all the engineering to essentially reapply if that's the decision you make to try to bring it into compliance. All right. And the reason I say that it's for timing. So, all right, so I am going to find that there is a violation of section 105.1 of the Florida building code for no permit for this structure. That is, it was erected in the backyard, which is basically the form of a sea wall. And a, um. A 5 of 50 dollars a day with a maximum of 5,000 dollars will commence on August. 18 of 2026, if not part of the compliance by August 17 of 2026. I'm going to go ahead and tell you the next hearing date is August 27. in this room. And then I'm also going to find there's a violation of section 2.25 of the ULDC. Let me ask one other question about this violation. It's probably going to be Mr. Kitty that's going to have the answer to this. Is this related to kind of the testimony that you gave before that that has to do with his application and the denial of that application or rejection of that application?

The way it was submitted would be denied. If he's going to submit the same exact thing, it would be the same exact.

Yeah, so my question is, because these are kind of related, the building code violation and the ULDC. Give me how they're different.

The certificate of zoning compliance would be the portion that's done for zoning. the building permit is if it requires any structural pieces that would be the part that building permit would be required.

so the uldc has a separate provision in it that okay i understand that okay so i i will find that there's also a violation of section 2.2.5 of the uldc that's uniform land development code for again it's related to the same facts but um where there is not a um Let's see, uh, has not been issued for it and a fine of 25 dollars a day with a maximum of 2000 dollars will commence on August 18 of 2026. If not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026.

All right, thank you all in the city would ask that this order make it clear what you would like for us to be prepared for at the next hearing.

Well, again, I think it depends on what his. What is that new is if he. I'm glad you asked that question. If he chooses to reapply for an after the fact building permit with his engineering and everything, I think the city needs to come prepared with whatever staff is necessary to address any technical issues. Here's the crux of it. For some reason, again, I didn't have to decide this today. For some reason, the city's determination is this particular structure, they won't issue a permit for it. That's an issue we did not address today. If he decides I'm going to stick to my guns and that's the structure that I'm going to try to get and I'm going to try to prove that the again i haven't even i haven't got into this i don't know what the criteria are for that so that would be the types of things that the city would need to come prepared for is you know here's a violation here's here's what the code says this is specifically how it's in violation understand makes sense and a lot of that's going to be the technical grounds you know under the code

So you want to understand the job that every person that's related to this case does in the building department versus them explaining to you based on their experience and their technical knowledge and representing to you that is not in violation or compliance?

Well, okay. So generally, codes are written and then, as you're aware, a lot of the codes give great deference to the zoning or building official to interpret the code so that means those people need to be here then that's that's who needs to be here does that answer your question yes and we will testify okay all right do you understand that too what i just said so the reason and the reason i'm saying that is if if we're going to get into a hyper technical discussion you may want to have your engineer here too Okay. All right.

For expert testimony.

For expert testimony, yeah. Because I'm a snowbird, I usually don't come down until November. Is there any way we can delay this till, because flying back and forth is not my cup of tea by any means.

We would object.

Okay.

Can we move this off? Of course, if it was brought in to comply.

We don't have hearings in November. No, January's fine.

I'm here until May. No, again, these cases, they have to move at a certain pace. So I apologize for that, but it'll be the August 27th hearing.

Okay, can't make it any later than that. Well... Because that's only a month, and this flying back and forth is expensive. I asked you to work with me here if you would.

Well, you need to talk to the city staff over here because I mean, it's either going to be August 27th or September 24th. I mean,

But I'll do respect your honor. We try to make these hearings very simple. I feel like it's consistently been made very difficult for the city recently, so you know that makes it a little bit harder.

None of this is simple.

So you know where you're at, you're asking for a lot for the city at this next hearing, which should not be at a second stage of a hearing so.

We're going to ask the August hearing. Okay. I can only make a decision on what's in the record. If you don't bring the building official here to testify, how am I supposed to make a decision on these things where there's a dispute going on?

One, two.

the city's job to prove the case by ponderance of the evidence number one number two hearsay evidence is admissible number three you have a plethora of city staff here that have testified for you and consistently testified and I'm finding that there's a violation I that's not that's not the issue I'm just I'm thinking ahead and if he decides he's going to choose a certain path which, again, I don't have any control over the path he chooses. And again, I think it's this. And here's what I would encourage you to do, because in real life, in real lawsuits, There's communication throughout the entire process. It's not like no one talks and then you show up at court and then there's a trial. That's not the way it works in real life. I would encourage you to have continuous communication with the city staff. By doing that, without me even getting involved, they may convince you that this particular structure is never going to get a permit. And then that will allow you to make a choice that's different than sticking to your guns and trying to have this one. Right. So that I encourage you to do that. To have continuous communication with city staff regarding this particular issue. You know, again, I'm what I'm trying to do today is just. make the first decision. Because if you get to the point where you are convinced that the city is never going to issue a permit for that, and you then go in a different direction, guess what? That next hearing is going to be very different than what we just talked about. So I know Mr. Radushi is standing up here, and I think he wants to say something.

Good morning, Your Honor. Kevin Raducci, Manager for the Code Enforcement Division. I just want to be clear on what I'm hearing. So today you're finding this gentleman for a violation of what exactly?

Of the Florida Building Code not having a permit and the ULDC for the certificate, not having a certificate.

So what's the purpose of the continuation of the hearing?

It's not a continuation. I'm just saying the date for compliance.

Okay, so the...

And again, I can't control how he decides to bring it into compliance. I understand that.

Neither can we.

If by the date I've said he removes this thing, then guess what? We don't have to have all these people here. I don't know what he's going to do, right?

The remedy for this would be twofold. Either remove it. or apply for another permit with what the city is requiring for that area to have to make that compliant. If that occurs, there will be no other hearing.

Right, it'll be in compliance, right? Correct.

Right. But you said something before that if he leaves it, so at the next hearing, if he leaves it the way it is, what's going to occur?

Okay, so again, this is a hypothetical situation I'm talking about. And this is why I told the property owner, be in constant communication with the city because, again, That sounds like there hasn't been much communication between the property owner and the city on this issue, other than, I guess, the one application that was denied. But what I'm saying is if he comes in and he says, I have applied for this after the fact permit, and I was denied and I think I was wrongfully denied, I think it's within my jurisdiction to hear evidence on that. Yeah, my jurisdiction is pretty broad under the ordinance.

Respectfully, I would disagree with that and I can say why there's other avenues. So permits are denied here, not all the time, but sometimes for a variety of reasons that never make it up here for, Little things or bigger things than this. So we try our best, the city staff, to work with people to get them to where they are in compliance. But there are certain aspects that even maybe you're not aware of or have the knowledge to rule on.

Let me back up. And maybe we just go ahead and we hash it all out today based upon the permit that he applied for. Because basically, I mean, are you saying your engineer has said there's technical reasons that should have been denied?

To my knowledge, no. To my knowledge.

I mean, again, I wasn't here.

You haven't had a conversation with your engineer? Yeah, over the phone. They could be, but we'll give it up. So I was trying to simplify things and just make a determination of noncompliance today. And then I say, I have no idea what his path for compliance is. But if he comes back and he says, look, I applied for this. I've been denied. an engineer standing next to him that's saying, it should not have been denied for these technical reasons. Yeah, I'm just saying we will hear that at that 2nd hearing. However, I think we may not.

We might as well do it now respectfully. We might as we might as well do it now, because this is taking an absorbent amount of time. And unfortunately, for this gentleman, I do think that jurisdiction wise, your only jurisdiction is to hear whether or not the individuals in this room have. are in violation of the violations that we have cited them for and brought before your honor that is the only jurisdiction in the code okay and unfortunately for this gentleman that is being hashed out in his case and he's having to stand here okay so and miss ray has something she would like to be well let me just ask him so

So do you understand what, so now we've switched gears.

I really don't get all the jargon. I really don't understand all the jargon.

Okay, so you were about to put into the record all this information from your engineer, and I stopped you because I'm trying to move this along here. But now the city's saying, no, let's go ahead and hash that all out right now. Which, again... I thought we were at a point where there wasn't really a strong objection to that, but now there is. So that's what's being asked. And now the good news for you is this potentially means you won't have to come back if we hash this all out now and I just make a determination that this particular structure is never going

I think you're missing that we're saying you do not have jurisdiction to make that determination. And Mr is would like to speak as an expert witness.

So, so what so what is his remedy then? If I again. Issue the order I was about issues saying that he's not in compliance.

Sir, as the ULDC administrator, I have not been sworn.

Go ahead. Anybody else that has been sworn, please stand.

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

I do. Good morning. Thank you so much, sir. I appreciate and apologize for the interruption. I ran up here as fast as I could. For the record, Elena Ray, Director of Development Services, I have been sworn. Per the code of the City of North Port Florida and the Unified Land Development Code, I am designated as the ULDC Administrator. I am responsible for interpreting and enforcing the ULDC. If a permit is denied or when a permit under the ULDC is denied and the Certificate of Zoning Compliance is part of the ULDC requirement, so it lives in the ULDC. If a certificate of zoning compliance is denied or someone disagrees with the interpretation of any part of the ULDC, the appropriate forum for appeal of that interpretation or the denial of that permit is directly to Circuit Court. So the permit was denied. If an aggrieved party to that permit wishes to appeal the denial, they move to circuit court. If someone asks for a formal interpretation of a ULDC provision, which in this case has not been asked for, I will issue a written interpretation of the ULDC. If the party receiving that interpretation is aggrieved, they may appeal to circuit court.

Thank you. You answered the question I asked about three minutes ago. You're very welcome.

That's why I wanted to come.

Okay. Do you understand what she just said?

Sort of. Yeah, I would like to talk to you then.

So what she's saying is that I hear this because again, I asked this question about 30 minutes ago and I didn't get an answer. I apologize.

I was in a meeting.

I don't have jurisdiction to get into all the issues related to, you know, did the city wrongfully deny This building permit and and what and let me just have 1. so you kept talking about the certificate of zoning compliance, but everything you said also applies to the Florida building code. It does. Okay. All right. So. So, again, that's so that means. You've got basically the right to, does he have what he needs to go to the circuit court? Does he have a formal denial at this point in time?

I would need to look at the time limit for denial after, for his appeal period after denial of a permit. But he has not, we have had no submission for a formal interpretation of the ULDC.

So we could issue that and then you have... What's the time frame for doing that?

He can ask for an interpretation any time.

And then is there any kind of a time limit?

I believe it's 30 days. I'll have to go back and check.

Okay. May I talk to you after this? Absolutely.

You need to talk. So based upon that testimony, I'm inclined to go to September instead of August for the compliance. Because then, and I'm going to tell you, so if you get to September 12th and you've got an application denied, and you've filed your appeal with the circuit court and you come back with evidence of that, we will probably continue the case again. But if you don't have that, It's you know it's done and the in the fines will, you know, will go forward. You understand that? Yeah, I will talk to her. OK, first chance I get. Alright, so I'm going to have one more time again based upon this most recent testimony. My inclination is to go to compliance by September 11 and and find starting on September 12th. You know, instead of the August dates. Opinion of the city.

The opinion of the city is that our position on the existing structure will not change.

Yeah, I'm just trying to give him sufficient time to run through the process if that's the process that he wants to choose. And again, I'm not telling him to choose that process.

That process has no bearing on this proceeding.

Again, I'm going to find him in noncompliance. I'm only... I'm only talking about the date for for compliance.

Well, that's why I'm saying the date for compliance that process would have no bearing on this proceeding. So there would be no reason to try to extend it out.

Then why have I always had multiple dates to choose from.

then it is in your honor's discretion.

There's no place to ask. All right. So I am going to make the same findings I made before as far as there's a violation. The only change is that it must be brought into compliance by September 11 of 2026. And those fines will then commence on September 12 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by September 11. Understand? All right, everyone. Thank you. That was that one. 18? 19. All right. This is case number CEKH 26-01382. The property owner is and the property address is 8029 Larimore Avenue. And this is a second hearing case.

I am Robert Harrelson, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 26-01382 was found in violation at the 6-25-26 hearing. There has been no change to the property, and I request that you sign the order assessing the fine.

All right, so this is the 2nd hearing case just a moment. I'm going to ask you to state your name for the record and that you've been sworn. So I already made a determination at the last hearing that. There were violations, so this hearing is all about have you brought it into compliance or not? So state your name and that you've been sworn.

I'm sorry, can you repeat? State your name and state that you've been to work. My name is Mirela Romanel.

All right. All right, so did you understand what I just said? Yeah.

Yes. We have to remove those cars, but we need more time for repairing because my husband is repairing. So he's working, after working, he's doing little by little. So we need more time for, because it's not drivable, Equipment.

Well, one of those is a trailer. Are you saying that trailer is not... No, the trailer is removed. The trailer is removed.

I was over there yesterday. The trailer now is on the lot by the house. There is still the truck that's still inoperable. The backhoe is still present. She has asked for it. She's wanting more time for this, but I dealt with this for the last month, and there's been very little cooperation. I don't know if she don't understand or what the situation is, but It's not, it's not happening. Yeah.

So, so let me so again, I'm just going to tell you historically what I've seen and historically what I've seen from city staff. Is if there's not 100% compliance. But there's at least movement in the direction of compliance. They are usually pretty cooperative if they see that not much that basically nothing's happened or very little has happened since the order was issued. they're kind of taking the position that they're taking now, which is, you know, there should have been something done between the date of violation and today. So is there anything you want to say addressing that?

Yes. We need more time to remove the yellow equipment, but it's not drivable.

Well, that is what the violation is. It's an inoperable vehicle.

So there's also that is construction equipment. Right.

And again, I think what the city's position is, they're looking at this in the totality of the circumstances. Again, they're seeing not much of anything has been done to bring this into compliance. That's pretty much what I'm hearing. It seems like that's what I'm hearing.

Yeah, it's just back and forth. The homeowner was violated on two other occasions on code cases where the son was parking a trailer on their right of way. We would issue the citation. He would move it for two days, put it back, and it was just ongoing. It was like a cat and mouse game, and it just got to the point where, you know, enough's enough.

All right, I'm going to give you the last word.

Please, if it's possible, we need more time to remove that.

All right. I'm going to make a determination that there was sufficient time when the original order was issued to bring this into compliance, and the fines will be imposed. Thank you. Oh, which one is it? Okay, which is also a continued case, okay. Next case is CE case 2600657. The property owner is Gene Jurgensen. The property address is 4627 Sunburst Avenue. This is a continued case. All right, so this has some similarities to the case we had earlier. So before we get started here, is the city's position the same as it was in that other case, that there is a process that is outside of this? that for if there's a disagreement over why a permit's been denied?

That is the law, but there has never been a permit requested in this case.

In this case. Okay. All right. All right. Answer that question and then when the city is ready, they may begin.

I'm William Kitty, Code Enforcement Field Supervisor, and I have been sworn. I'm also assisting in this case. And the case number was case number 26-00657. It was initially inspected back in March 3rd of 2026. It was found in violation, or no, it was not found in violation. It was continued to this hearing's case. I'm gonna leave this to the Kimberly, to present just to show all the facts in the case. All right.

Okay, so the burden of proof in this case based on City of Northport Code section 2-508 subsection C shall be upon the prosecutor to show by preponderance of the evidence that a violation does exist and that the violator committed or was responsible for maintaining or allowing the violation to continue. The applicable standard of proof, as I said, is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the evidence demonstrates that it is more likely than not that the alleged violations occurred. This standard does not require absolute certainty or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Think of it like a balancing scale. If the evidence tips the scale even slightly in one direction, 51% to 49%, the burden of proof has been met. City of Northport Code Section 2-508 Subsection C also states the evidence portion. The hearing officer shall take testimony from the code enforcement officers, witnesses, and the alleged violator. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due process shall be observed and govern the proceedings. Hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions. Irrelevant evidence should be excluded and should not be the basis for finding a fact. The relevant facts in this case are that Ms. Shea Reagan, formerly known as Jean Ann Jurgensen, currently owns 4627 Sunburst Avenue, Northport, Florida, 34286. The city received a complaint regarding a potential code violation at Ms. Reagan's property. On March 3rd, 2026, code enforcement inspector George White inspected the property and observed a fence exceeding six feet in height and a retaining wall. Upon investigation, the city determined that no permit had been obtained for the installation of the fence and no certificate of zoning compliance had been obtained for the retaining wall as required by the applicable codes. On March 3rd, 2026, Ms. Reagan was issued a notice of violation in order to correct for the fence violation only, which was specifically for violating section 105.1 of the Florida Building Code, which requires a permit for the installation of a fence exceeding six feet in height. The notice of violation in order to correct was served on Ms. Reagan by certified mail and was delivered on March 20th, 2026. Ms. Reagan was given 10 days to correct the violation by attaining the required permit, but failed to do so. On April 14th, 2026, Ms. Reagan was issued a subsequent notice of violation in order to correct for violating Section 105.1 of the Florida Building Code, which requires a permit for the installation of a fence exceeding six feet in height, as well as Chapter 2, Article 2, Section 2.2.5 of the City of Northcourt Unified Land Development Code, which requires a certificate of zoning compliance before the construction of residential accessory structures, which includes the retaining wall and the fence exceeding six feet in height. The second notice of violation in order to correct was served on Ms. Reagan by certified mail and was delivered on April 30th, 2026. Ms. Reagan was provided 10 days to correct the violations by obtaining the required fence permit, obtaining a certificate of zoning compliance for the retaining wall and fence, and scheduling the required inspections. As of the date of this hearing, Ms. Reagan remains in violation as she has not obtained the required fence permit, obtained a certificate of zoning compliance, or scheduled the required inspections. As the owner of the property, Ms. Reagan is legally responsible for what happens on her property. Property owners who undertake work on their own property assume the responsibility of ensuring the work complies with all applicable codes and permitting requirements. A failure to obtain the required permits or approvals is not excused by a claim that the owner was unaware of the requirements or relied on informal advice. The initial hearing for this matter was conducted on June 25th, 2026. The city and the respondent each presented evidence and testimony. After considering all the evidence, it was concluded that there was approximately a 97 to 98% certainty that the respondent was in violation. Because the applicable burden of proof is more likely than not, 51%, the city's burden had already been met at the June 25th, 2026 hearing. The matter was nevertheless continued with a request for more evidence. On July 21st, 2026, Code Enforcement inspectors Henley Burton and William Kitty personally inspected Ms. Reagan's property and measured the fence, which is in excess of six feet, as Ms. Reagan admitted under oath at the June 25th, 2026 hearing. At all measured locations, the fence exceeded six feet in height, ranging from seven feet, 10 and a quarter inches to eight feet, six inches. Again, with regards to evidence, the hearing officer can only consider evidence presented at the hearing that directly relates to the alleged violations. This includes but is not limited to inspection reports, photographs, permits, notices, proof of correction, and testimony relevant to the violation. Irrelevant or repetitious evidence cannot form the basis for a finding. Evidence such as lack of knowledge of the law, general complaints, or opinions not tied to the violations may not be considered. So what must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence? For violation number one, that a permit was required for the fence, the city must only prove, one, that a fence was constructed on the property, two, the fence exceeds six feet in height, and three, no building permit was obtained before construction. Inspector Kitty. Did you go to Miss Reagan's property on July 21st? Yes, I did. And were you part of the measurement process for the fence?

Yes, I was helping to capture the event by photograph and in the presence of the owner.

And while you were there, did you witness that the fence was in excess of six feet in height?

Yes.

And while you were there, did you also see that there was a retaining wall?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. Here are some photos. As you can see in all of the measurements, it is exceeding six feet in height. What must be proven beyond a preponderance of the evidence for violation number two, certificate of zoning compliance required. The city must only prove number one, a retaining wall was constructed on the property. That's it, that a retaining wall was constructed, nothing else. Number two, a fence was constructed on the property and that that fence exceeds six feet in height. And number four, no certificate of zoning compliance was obtained before construction. Here are some pictures of the retaining wall. And once again, the measurements for the fence. And Inspector Kitty, once again, if you could please. Sure. Have you looked up the respondent's property in this case and searched for any permits for the fence?

I have.

Has there ever been a fence permit applied for in this case?

No.

Has there ever been a certificate of zoning compliance applied for in this case for the fence?

No.

For the retaining wall?

For the retaining wall or for the fence.

Okay, thank you. So the required findings before rendering a decision. There are only three relevant questions for violation number one. One, did respondent construct a fence? Yes, as we have proven by preponderance of the evidence, both at the June 25th hearing and this hearing. Number two, is the fence over six feet in height? Yes. Three, was a permit obtained? No. The result must be that the respondent be found in violation. For violation number two, there are only four relevant questions. Number one, did the respondent construct a retaining wall? Yes. Number two, did the respondent construct a fence? Yes. Number three, is the fence over six feet in height? Yes. Number four, was a certificate of zoning compliance obtained? No. The result must be that the respondent be found in violation for violation number two as well. And we ask that you find both those violations expediently in this hearing.

Anything else?

No.

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

Good morning, I'm Shea Reagan, and I have been sworn.

Okay. Okay, you have any questions, or you just want to make your presentation?

I'm sure questions will come.

And before you, I apologize. That's okay. I mean, you heard that other hearing, and I think you heard, do you understand my limitations of jurisdiction from that? Okay, I just want to make sure you understand.

Okay. Well, I think the presentation is erroneous on its face. There are measurements that are there that are not true measurements. There's been some excavation, so the true grade is not where they were measuring from. There's been soil removed in order to put in the fence, put in the wall, so it was showing a higher measurement than it actually is. I actually have some photographs if I might share with... Again, yeah, if...

Mr. Kitty, if you'll walk them over and again, I'm just looking for, do they represent the property?

A little bit at a time. So this speaks to what the grade was and erosion that was there. So that's showing that.

I'm going to object to relevance, Your Honor. This has nothing to do with the fence or the retaining wall.

Okay, let me take a look at it.

It actually does, it's the reason for putting that in. That's irrelevant.

Well, again, I get to decide.

That changes the grade on the side of that property.

Okay, say once again what this is supposed to be representing.

That shows the amount of erosion that occurred.

And how does it show that?

It's showing the true level from the house out where there was ground.

So are you saying the ground was not sloped from the foundation of the house?

Slightly, but there was a berm there and then it dropped, but it was quite flat and level to begin with. We've lost a lot because of that.

Your Honor, if I may?

Sure.

We, when we went out on July 25th, the fence was measured from where the ground currently lies to the top of the fence.

I understand that.

That is all that is relevant. Whatever has happened to the ground before, after, six years ago, 20 years ago, 17 years into the future isn't wholly irrelevant to this hearing.

It's not because that was true grade.

Based on the code.

And with that information, when the field was put back in.

Okay, so there's two issues here. One is, you know, is this going to come into the record? Again, it's relaxed rules of evidence, and I, you know, and I, you know, either put little weight on it or I put great weight on it. I'm going to let it come into the record, so let's just get over that. May I admit? Yeah, now you can make your arguments about it.

Okay, so I'm going to admit this one as well. Okay. This shows the full length of the space in that area. So when fill is returned, it will be in compliance. The fence will actually be under six feet.

I understand your argument, but again, I think that argument is not really for me to hear based upon what the zoning administrator testified to in that other hearing. To me, it seems like the process is, to apply for an after the fact permit. If it's denied, take your appeal rights from there. But again, so what's your, what's the opinion on this?

Your honor, we're still going to object to relevance. This is why these keep hearings keep going on forever because we keep introducing irrelevant evidence. I showed you the sections of the code regarding irrelevant evidence for that. That wouldn't be regarding the relevancy, but we'll discuss it.

Well, again, she gets to argue her case and and again, I'm not. Again, I'm not ruling on how much weight I'm putting on this stuff, but I'm going to let this come into the record. Okay, go ahead.

My understanding is that this hearing was to decide whether we move forward with the permit. So you instructed me to do the inspection, which when I left here, I requested a month ago.

So let me ask you this. Have you applied for a permit since the last hearing?

I have not. I thought this hearing was to determine that. So my mistake possibly, but I understood your direction was to do the inspection and then we would revisit the can I get the after the fact? Because it will be completely in compliance when the project's done. So with that in mind, the fence will be under six feet.

I guess my, again, based upon what I heard in another hearing today, and yeah, I think it's appropriate for you to testify in this hearing also. So just give me a moment. Just state your name for the record. I know you've been sworn.

Yes. Elena Raid, Director of Development Services. There are two things I'd like to state. One, if the grade was changed by the property owner or the property owner intends to change the grade, A permit is needed.

Right.

If the grade has been changed without a permit, that would be a violation, a separate violation. Additionally, the grade is not measured from inside that retaining wall. The grade is measured from the outside of the retaining wall and the outside of that fence. That's the issue. Not if she adds two feet of sand inside that retaining wall, that still doesn't bring it into compliance. It will still be measured from the height of the grade at that retaining wall.

Right. So, and then, but again, also, can you just repeat what you said in the other hearing about what the process is?

So, yes, sir. If someone disagrees, if a permit's denied or someone disagrees, with it. There is an appeal process. It is not through this hearing board.

Right. Okay. All right. Now back to you.

So when putting this in, yes, there was some grade change in order to put the fence into the footer. When the measurements were taken yesterday...

Hold on a second. I want to make sure you understand and appreciate what that testimony just was.

Mm-hmm.

It's saying that I'm the wrong person to make this argument to, essentially. That there's this process for an appeal, but it's not through me.

Sorry, I would say that that testimony that was just presented into evidence proves that there is another violation in existence that we haven't cited for.

Well, I think her testimony on that was erosion caused the change.

She did state that the grade was changed in order to put the retaining wall in.

In order to put the fence posts in, and he was measuring from an artificial point. There's no artificial point.

There is the grade. Again, I can only rule on the violations that are performed.

But I think that it's important to note that the property owner has admitted to creating an additional violation. for changing the grade of the property.

Again, what I want the property owner to fully appreciate is that there are buckets and there's buckets of jurisdiction. I have jurisdiction over certain matters, but I'll have completely unbridled jurisdiction to decide everything. I'm not a judge. Um, so, uh, so that is that that is the argument that the city is making is that. There's this other process and you are, you know, you're free to. Explore that other process. Um, but it's not going to be me who's going to make that call. It's going to be a judge. Okay. Okay. All right. Again, I interrupted you. So again. Um. You may get some objections as to relevancy from the other side over here, but I want you to have your say.

Okay. I would actually like to read the code into the hearing, and I'm looking for a definition. So Section 3.7.7E, full text. Fence and wall height is measured from the average grade of the property, one maximum height, A, residential, one front yard, and secondary front yard. four feet, two, side and rear or mortar front, eight feet, B, non-residential, eight feet, two, fence posts and wall columns may extend above the maximum fence height by one foot, provided no part of the fence or wall or column shall be, or excuse me, shall have a height greater than five feet in the front yard of a residential district or nine feet elsewhere. Point two is that current code section 3.7.7 states, fence posts and wall columns may extend above the maximum height of the fence by one foot, provided no part of the fence or wall or column shall have a height of greater than five feet in the front yard of a residential district or nine feet elsewhere. Now, I would like to know what is the definition of average grade?

I think we have someone here. Okay. So again, this is going to be one of, and I'm going to ask a question of the city first. This is one of these areas where, again, the code does not address every single possibility. And, and, but you are the person that is to interpret. the code and to basically fill the gaps. Is that a correct statement? That is a correct statement. Okay. All right. So go ahead and answer the question that was asked.

So I have not done a formal interpretation on this particular question. And the property owner would be welcome to apply for a formal interpretation that we would then do. On the face of it, though, and in practice, it's the average grade of the property along that property line. So we don't look at the entire property. If we had a 200-acre property, it doesn't make sense to measure everything based on the average grade of that entire property. We look at where the structure is at. So that property line is where this structure is at. So we look at the average grade of that structure. The grade is the existing property, so the existing ground. If they have installed a fence and a retaining wall, we measure that fence and retaining wall from the outside edge.

Okay, so let me make sure I understand what you said. And apply it to this specific situation. You would take a measurement, I guess, of the grade that's next to the house, and you take a measurement of the grade at the property line.

No, we would take a measurement all along the grade of that structure.

Along the line of the fence, basically.

Right. So we measure, you know, the front, we measure the back.

Right. Okay. I understand. All right. So, and again... The testimony is that there's been no request for formal interpretation of that at this point in time.

Correct.

And again, that's that's a different process than than today's process. All right. I'm going to go back to. So, I mean, did you ask that question? It was answered. Do you have a follow up question to that or are you ready to move on to something else?

Yes, two points. Actually, no general grade was measured because there was one post and one next to it that was taken measurements of, and again, they're artificial because their post holes were dug in order to get the posts in. There was no other measurements taken to get a general. I also would like to know where is and what statute is the definition for general grade. It's not up to interpretation. It's up to I want to be able to see what exactly it is that you're basing that on.

So the ULDC does state that when a specific definition is not provided in the ULDC, we will use standard industry practices, Webster. Right. Understood and accepted definitions, so there does not have to be the actual definition within the and that is per the.

And I want to say 1 other thing here, so part of the problem here is a permit wasn't applied for. So, if a permit has been applied for. All these measurements could have been done. This is now after the fact. And that I'm going to, in my opinion. Sort of shifts the burden back to you because. How can the city know what was there before?

No, I understand that again. I understood the hearing. Last my instruction was to get the inspection done. And so then we would go forward with the after the fact permit.

Okay. Well, so let me cut to the chase.

But we also had to establish where the ground actually was to show that it will be in compliance when we're done. It will be less than six feet.

Not correct.

But that will be through this other process. That won't be a decision I make.

And that is not an accurate statement.

Okay. Tell me how it's not accurate.

Regardless of what... changes to the grade without a permit were done inside that retaining wall. If you look at the ground on the outside of that retaining wall, that is well established grass. That's been there for a while. So the retaining wall, that is the grade. That's the grade that everything is measured from. And if the property owner built a retaining wall on that well established ground right there, that's where it's measured from that's not going to change no permit is going to change that nothing is going to change that that was that retaining wall was built at a at that grade that's existing on the outside of that property on the outside of that retaining wall and again so i'm

Correct me if I'm wrong here. What she's saying is if you go through this other process. That's going to be the zoning determination that you're going to get from from city staff and then you will have your rights. to appeal that after that. Is that kind of basically what I'm hearing? That is correct.

That is correct, Your Honor. And I would just like to state that this process is to be fair and impartial to both the city and the property owner. So to continuously bring up this appeal process against the city in these proceedings feels a little counterintuitive to these proceedings. So I would ask that we move forward for the hearing that we are here for, which is to find whether or not the respondent is in violation. Can that be done in a fair and impartial manner to both parties?

Well, she has that right. She does.

If you'd like to hire an attorney to explain the law to her, she is more than welcome to do so.

May I ask a question? Anything else?

Yeah, I have a question for Elena.

Sure, go ahead.

There was an assumption made about the grass and about the grade. Were you at the site yesterday?

No, I wasn't. I'm looking at photos.

Right. So you wouldn't know then that the grass there grows in feet.

Let me stop here again. So she was just telling you what her decision would be if you made a formal zoning determination request, correct?

How that decision would be made.

Again, that's not really relevant to what we're dealing with today, right now. So Again, I'm not going to cut you off yet, but understand that your questions need to be addressed to what's relevant here today. These are fairly informal hearings, and we always talk about what are the paths for compliance. And I don't have a problem with that. I mean, our goal here is not to punish people. But if people are not in compliance, there's going to be consequences. So again, I don't want to cut you off, but I want whatever your questions are, whatever your testimony is, it needs to be relevant to what's going to happen here today. So go ahead.

Well, I'm still looking for that general grade definition and to understand where that comes from. The measurements, I believe, are inaccurate because they were done in a hole on the outside, which is not exactly true grade. And my understanding of general grade was taking the average of, as you said, what's at the house, what the bottom of the slope is from the erosion, and figuring out the middle of that, which does raise that measurement up or lessens it.

But I'm not the person who interprets the code. I was asking that as a question. And her answer, I will say this, because I want this to be in the record, her answer that that average is measured along the line of the fence, along the fence line, makes sense that that's how it would be measured because you could have, you know, the front of the fence could have a much different grade than the back of the fence.

Well, that's my point, though, is that they didn't do that.

But that's not what we're, all they had to do today was what they did for what's going to be determined today. If you, again, I'm going to get criticized for saying this again, but if you go through this other process, Yeah, then all that will potentially shake out, but there is also the problem of this is all after the fact. So we don't know exactly what the existing grade was, but OK, but so again. I'm gonna get you can. I want I'm not cutting you off yet, but but you have other questions that are relevant to what's going to happen here today.

I have no problem filling out a permit again after the fact permit. We were at a different place last hearing. So if I have the permission to move forward in that direction, I would do that. I understood I needed to get... Well, I was under the impression that that would be decided here after the inspection, which only happened yesterday.

Just like... I just want you to understand. So just like that case that you heard before... I don't tell you how to bring it into compliance. I make a determination that it's not in compliance or it's in compliance. If it's not in compliance, you have multiple ways to bring it into compliance. And I don't direct you in any particular way to do that. You do what you want to do. So again, I'm going to give you the last word, and then we're going to close this hearing.

I would move forward in getting an after-the-fact permit.

Okay.

Sorry. May I?

Yeah, and then I'm going to give her one more shot, but go ahead.

Of course, of course. But our understanding is that one of the reasons why the after-the-fact permit has not been applied for is because an engineer has not been obtained to certify the wall.

Okay. And are you saying circumstances have changed? And is that what you were meant by? You said circumstances have changed?

I'm sorry.

Well, again, I'm not going to get into the details of why something was done because, again, it's not really relevant to my decision here today. But I'm going to give you the last word since the City spoke.

Well, again, my understanding is that the engineer's report was to be postponed and or determined based on this hearing, having the inspection done to see where we were with that.

Okay. Anything else?

No, I'm trying to be in compliance, so I'm trying to work with them in the communication. Having the inspection yesterday instead of a month ago when I requested is giving very little time to get all those other things in.

Well, again, this is the first hearing, so you're going to have time before fines commence to bring it into compliance, and I think you're going to hear my rationale on that.

Your Honor, yesterday was not an inspection for a permit or anything. I just wanted to make sure she understands that.

Yesterday was not, it was just it was the well, it was, I think, 2 fold it again. Well, I.

It was not an inspection for her permit. It was required of us to gather more evidence for this second hearing before.

Yeah, I mean, I didn't know. Yeah, I just had pictures. I didn't have. The evidence that I have today, so. Yeah, so I just had. Rough ideas about how high the fence was. I didn't have the evidence I have today. All right, so I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to close this hearing. I'm going to find that there is a violation of section 105.1 of the Florida building code for no permit obtained for this this fence. That that has been measured to be over 6 feet tall, although, you know, even if it was 6 feet tall, there's no permit for it. So there's there's a violation for no permit. Um, a 5 to 50 dollars a day with a maximum of 5,000 dollars will commence. And this is where I'm going to pick the same dates I picked in that other hearing and I'm going to tell you why in a moment. We'll commence on September 12th of 2026. It's not brought into compliance by September 11 of 2026. And then I'm also going to find that there's a violation of 2.2.5 of the unified land development code for not having a certificate of zoning compliance for both fence and the retaining wall. And, uh, I find 25 dollars a day. with a maximum of $2,000 will commence on September 12th, 2026, if not brought into compliance by September 11th of 2026. And again, I'm not gonna repeat necessarily everything that I heard in testimony, but again, it's based upon the evidence in the record. It's also based upon the interpretation of what the average grade is that came into the record. And now I'm going to say the reason why I picked those dates, because that then gives you the time to run through this other process. And I'll say the same thing I said in the other case. If you show up at the hearing on September 24th of 2026, And again, I'm not going to predict what the city's going to decide, but you kind of heard what the city's position is. So I'm going to assume. For a moment, just for purposes of timeline. That there's a denial and you come in and say, here's evidence that I filed my appeal. It's in the circuit court right now. you know, then we'll have a conversation about continuing or staying, you know, the decision until that runs its course. But, you know, that's what I'm going to want to see. I'm going to want to see that there's an appeal filed at that point in time. Okay. All right? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Seven, two? Okay, okay. All right, and this is the moment where we're waiting for the attorney to arrive. As the attorney arrived, I'm going to go ahead and call the case, KCE case 2601472, the Russian Orthodox Church of the, and I, for, you know, Pekev, icon of the Mother of God, Inc. The property address is 3393 Allman Avenue. Your honor might even even attorneys have to be sworn. Were you sworn?

I have been sworn and I just wanted to let you know that I'm not the attorney. I'm the owner's rep and the engineer.

Okay.

All right. Okay.

And the city may begin whenever they are ready.

I'm Tony Breon code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport. And I've been sworn case 26 to 01472 was initially inspected on 572026. Violation description was a certificate of zoning compliance required. Development review, number two, development application type 2.2.5 ULDC, certificate of zoning compliance. Property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 713. I have two photos to present as evidence. These photos are true and accurate depiction of the property located at 3393 Oman Avenue.

Okay. And again, it can be anyone from the city that testifies on this. I just need again. I'm just reading here prohibited activity. So can someone tell me what the prohibited activities are? That works and once it currently zone was permitted there. What's going on there and why that's not permitted the head they're holding a place of assembly there.

There's someone standing behind you.

I think you've been sworn, correct? Good morning, yes, Your Honor. I have been sworn, Kyle Hoffman, zoning coordinator. So they are running a church, or what in our code would be called a place of assembly. We're trying to help determine whether or not it would be considered a large or a small place of assembly. That's what they are currently applying for. So they are zoned in the agricultural district, which a small scale assembly would be permitted there with a conditional use. Currently, they are still giving us documentation for a site development plan that would hold that conditional use. We have not received everything for them at this point in time, but we're waiting to get the last couple of documents from them so that that can be reviewed by our development review team for that conditional use as well as what they're asking for as a small assembly.

All right. So I'm going to ask. Yeah, so this is 1 of these situations sometimes the city is like, we're seeing progress made. We just wrote K, continuing the case. Sometimes it's like, well, there's been a little bit of progress made, but there's been a gap and we haven't seen any progress recently. I see Mr reducing coming down here. So we'd rather. see that there's a violation and then a date set for compliance. So, Mr. Raducci.

Good morning, Your Honor. Kevin Raducci, Manager for the Code of Orphan Division. Personally, I've been in that building. When did the case start again? I believe, was it in March?

Case started on 5-7-2026.

Okay, so May, we were in it before that, myself and the prior building official. This has been going on a long time. It seems to be a very slow process. I believe on the weekends, they are having services there. We get multiple reports from neighbors with pictures with tens of cars there on the property. Because where they are and because where we need them to be, there's never been any fire inspections there. So it's a very big safety concern. What I saw when I was in there before the case started was a, in my opinion, it was all set up as a place of worship, which is fine. However, there's a lot of people in there and it's a huge safety concern.

So let me ask you a question. So what is, what's the break line between small scale and large scale?

The pictures that I've seen from the neighbors, there's probably 30 or 40 cars there on the weekends.

But what's the code? What's the breaking point? Is it the number of people in attendance? Is that how that's determined?

Give me one moment, Your Honor. I'll pull up what the code actually states on those two.

Just to say this, I believe they'll get what they need eventually to the permits and everything to get so they're in compliance. But the point is it's been a while and it's been a very slow process. And they're not even at the point where they're at the – They need to do things as were stated prior. They need to do to get to that point. And that needs to be hurried along a little bit to, you know, the city's patience is basically wearing out a little bit.

Okay. I hear you. I understand. Why don't you stay up there because I think we probably got the right person standing over here to answer some of these questions. And I'm just going to ask, Just right off the bat, again, I think you I think you weren't here at the very beginning when I said sometimes, you know, the testimony is about why I don't think I'm in violation, like the last case we just heard. Other times it's like, OK, we know we're in violation, but we need time. And then it sounds like you're the right person to lay out the timeline. For how to get to compliance, so say your name for the record and you've been sworn.

My name is Ryan. I work for and associates and I'm operating as the owner's rep in this case. I was hired by them. on 6-30-26. I understand the violation was in May. English is not their main way of communicating, so there's been a lot of confusion. They've been trying to do stuff on their own, but they knew they reached to a point where it was just too confusing, and that's when they reached out to me.

And you're a land planner?

Civil engineer.

Civil engineer. Yes.

All right. so since that point i've been trying to communicate with the city which i've had back a little bit of back and forth with kyle but on two instances i've left voicemails with the building department trying to get information and i've not received any information back or any contact from building enforcement code enforcement so from the planning side i'm trying my best and we've had some communication and i was told to apply for the conditional use permit I do have a preliminary site construction plan with the permit number that we're trying to get through the process. The other item that may be of concern or causes length is the difference between getting communication back. And then we were asked to do a DRC meeting, which that adds an additional time, right? So each step of the way, it feels like adds multiple weeks. So in between, if we can get, we're trying to work with an architect to try to get a building as built in, Elevations and everything that they need, but the process each process adds weeks. It's not something that can just be resolved. A site development plan doesn't just get resolved in a month. So I want to do everything that you guys want. It's just, it's not. A process that's as quick as, hey, just apply for this permit because we did apply for the per and is the conditional use.

Does that require a public hearing?

I'll. That would not require the public hearing to my knowledge. Okay, so it would be, it would go through the site development plan and it would receive a development order through that process. Once it's everything's been approved.

All right, so here's going to be my question. I'm asking you for your best guess. How long do you think it's going to take?

A typical site development plan process takes anywhere from 3 to 6 months. Okay.

All right, now I'm going to turn to the city and say, so we don't even go out six months. I mean, I guess we can do the calculation if we have to. I mean, one thing we can do, let me ask you this. If we get to December 10th, Um, you anticipate that even if you're not at the finish line, there'll be substantial progress.

As long as I can get communication back, we can get this moving much quicker. Okay.

Well, I'm going to turn to the city. I'm going to ask. So, you know, I think 1 thing to do is. To pick a date. three, four months out. Because I mean, I think he's saying it ain't going to happen less than three months. There's just too many steps to go through. And then as you know, if we're here and it's the second hearing, But there's evidence there's all kinds of evidence and again, and you're communicating regularly with the city so that so that they know what you're doing. You can come and say, look, they're 80% there, you know, and and I can continue that hearing.

You know, just just a couple of things I'd like to say, I'll defer to Mr often for the timetable because they will be dealing with him. It's his office. So he'll control that. I have no problem with that. Just want to dispute a couple of things.

Okay.

Since the beginning, since I've been involved with the members back there have been in our city hall at probably 4 to 5 times. they've been turned over to different people they've also brought on their own people that speak english that i have told on numerous occasions you really got to start getting going on it they've been in but they haven't really crossed the hump on this right again we will be graceful and uh and make some sort of accommodation but that is action that is absolutely you know we're getting to the end of that like now we need to see forward progress and ryan i've never met you before spoken to you We will work with you. We will work with the congregation. We want to see this through. We just want it to be done safely and in a timely manner. And the timely part is sort of coming to an end.

I agree with you. Protection, safety, fire protection, all that's very important. And I'd gladly talk so that I can help relay what needs to be done right away. All right. So I'll defer to Mr. Hoffman, whatever he says.

Let me give you, I'm just going to throw a date out there and then I'll see what your reaction is to it. The October 22 hearing. And that would be, you know, there would have to be significant progress

I wouldn't have an issue with that at this point, because what he did state is correct. A standard site development plan would take anywhere between 3 and 6 months. I would say his wouldn't necessarily go to the latter part because that site is developed as opposed to. Coming from an undeveloped line to something being developed the only things that I do know that are required still within that. Application we have are those building elevations and then a narrative, and then that would be able to be submitted. So we would be able to start that process. And that's what we are currently waiting on are those 2 documents.

So, yeah, so this is this this day actually, you know, is. Within your shorter time frame. Absolutely. So you may actually make it. Complete 100% by then, but if you're not. I just want to tell you why I'm asking these questions is that when I get to that second hearing and if I assess the fine at that point in time, the jurisdiction is out. It can't come back to me. It can only go back to the city commission. That's why I try to pick a date that is a date where there's a reasonable chance of success. That's more than enough time for us to get substantial work done. Okay. And you say you can you can live with that? Yes. Sure. Okay. All right. So I am going to find. That there is a violation of section 2.2.5 of the unified land development code for no certificate of zoning compliance. For this particular property again, I've heard testimony that there is processes ongoing that will, if successful, will bring this all into compliance. I'm going to. So, fines of. $25 a day with a maximum of $2,000 will commence on October 7th of 2026, if not brought into compliance by October 6th of 2026. And then and that's my ruling. But now I'm just going to say so that the next hearing after that is October 22 of 2026. So again, stay in constant communication with the city staff. If you get that in compliance by that date that I just said, October 6, you don't even need to come back. You know, it's done otherwise you just need to show a substantial effort and for some reason you haven't gotten 100% yet. Then, yeah, I'm going to want to hear. Evidence of substantial progress towards the end goal. Understood. All right. Yep. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Page 5. And it's case number... Okay, the next case is CE case 2600977. The property owner is Kelsey McLeod. The property address is 3790 Abilene. And this is a continued case.

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 27th, 2026. This case is addressing the violation of Florida Building Code 105.1, a permit required. There had been four windows replaced without proper permitting. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN INSPECTED MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, MOST RECENTLY AS OF YESTERDAY. I HAVE HAD CONTACT PREVIOUSLY WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER PRIOR TO TODAY, AND I HAVE ONE PHOTO AS EVIDENCE TO SHOW, WHICH IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE DEPICTION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3790 ABBA LANE NORTHPORT. So just for the record also.

This is a continuance of a second hearing case. It is a second hearing case.

So as of last night, the property owner had submitted She has previously applied for the permit. However, the information she submitted late last night, I stayed late with the deputy building official, what she had supplied is for the wrong windows. So where she got that information, that permit cannot be approved as it stands right now. She submitted an application for fixed windows. Those are single hung windows. And the information she supplied said they were white windows. Those are bronze windows. So I don't know where that information came from, but it's clearly the wrong window. and we cannot move forward at this point. So I would just ask that you assess the fines until she can get the proper documentation for those windows and submit it so the permit can be issued.

Okay, Ms. McCloud, state your name for the record that you've been sworn.

Kelsey McCloud, yes, sir.

Okay, and can you, what's the explanation for the wrong windows?

Well, the person that installed those windows is no longer to be like, I can't contact him. So these were installed over two years ago. He told me he handled the whole process. I paid him thousands of dollars to do this. And I just recently, when all this started was made aware of. THIS WHOLE THING. I KNEW, I HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THIS. THE WINDOWS, THEY'RE FROM A COMPANY, CSW, AND I CONTACTED CSW. THE PLACE THAT HOUSED, I GUESS, THESE WINDOWS HAS SHUT DOWN, SO IT'S NOW BASED OUT OF MIAMI, THEIR HEADQUARTERS. And that is the information that they sent over. He made me aware that that was the wrong information and what I needed to call them and obtain from them, which is what I'm going to be trying to work on. And I guess apply for a new permit or I don't know the next step. They did. We did discuss like, you know, the inspection. I thought that was post getting this documentation, the permit. So the drywall, everything's been cut out to expose the windows. I'm ready for inspection. I just need to obtain the proper permit.

Okay.

So it sounds like she tried, you know, and the information that she obtained, you obtained this information from the manufacturer?

Yes, correct. And they are based out of Miami now, that's their only location. And also the other thing that affected the time delay was because I had to actually contact on the 17th your staff because I was monitoring the progress from the application online, but somehow I ended up with two portal accounts. So it was sent to the wrong one.

All right. All right. So my inclination is, again, because we're a second hearing, I'm not going to see this again. I will say this, if I continue this one more time, I guess what I don't want to hear is that, you know, that the permit application was made the night before.

So I did submit what I believe is the proper information. It is uploaded.

Yeah, and I get that. I mean, I think there's a little bit of, like, kind of excusable neglect going on, you know, here, you know, because of, you know, that you tried, but it wasn't the right thing. Right, right. Your Honor, if I may. Yeah, so let me hear from the city again.

So if I may, when we spoke on the telephone last night, I was actually in the office of John Durrett. Yes. Who explained to you the documentation and what was wrong with it. Okay, and you had mentioned that it looks like on the left side of the house, that's a bedroom?

Yes.

For your children?

Correct.

Okay, so there's never been an inspection on those to see if the egress is capable. So if there is an emergency inside the house where those children need to access that window to escape, There's no inspections that have been done. So we don't even know when those operate. So that's the problem we have.

Because it was never done correctly.

And this will be going since March that we're aware of in two years, considering your testimony.

So we have a serious problem here. And I hear that, I appreciate that. And this is a life safety issue here. So is your testimony that... You opened up the drywall to expose the bucks.

Well, I was told that that's what we were going to have to do for inspection.

And when did you do that? You did that since the last hearing?

These were never finished. The guy started the work and never, and I didn't want to.

Oh, so the bucks had been exposed this entire time? Yeah.

It's still like that now. There's one window that's different, so it has to be exposed from the interior versus exterior, but everything's exposed and I'm ready for inspection. I just don't know how to get to the point of inspection.

I'll give you one more shot. Is there anything else you want to say? No. Okay. All right. I'm going to find that there was some progress made. It was wrong. You know, it's just that the fines that I yeah, these are not insignificant fines. And but so I'm going to continue the case till next month, which is August 27, 2026. But again, I don't want to hear that the permit was done the night before. You know, I mean, I think now that you know what the problem is, I think when you get the new information, Now that you know what the prior problem was, you're going to be able to look at the information, look at these windows and say, do these match? Are these the correct windows? And then again, I mean, I guess it's possible that if you do that fairly quickly, because the bucks are already exposed. I mean, this after the fact permit could, I mean, could potentially be issued by the August 27th hearing. I'm guessing, you know, I mean, it's, I don't think it's a, you know, like say this is, there's not like a whole lot of destruction needs to be done here. I think to determine that the windows were installed correctly since. So, so I'm going to continue into the August 27th, 2026 hearing, but Ride heard on the manufacturer and ride heard on yourself getting the. The proper after the fact permit application file. All right, sir. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. That's all the cards, I think. So we're going to go back to. Let's see. We'll get that continued case. We've got one more continued case here, which is CE case 2601048. The property owner is Gerald and Ruby Stackhouse. The property address is 3147 California Terrace.

I am Robert Harrelson, code enforcement inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 26-01048 was found in violation at the 6-25-26 hearing. There have been no changes to the property, and I request that you sign the order assessing the fine.

Oh, so this is... No, this is the first hearing case. This is CE case 26-01048?

Right. I believe the hearing before...

Oh, is this like, yeah, Stackhouse they were here last month, but it was continued as far as oh, so it's a continued first hearing case.

Okay. All right. Okay. All right anyway. Okay. All right. So I'm going to find. Uh, that there is, yeah, again, I think you, I think even when we continued this, you provided all the evidence necessary. to find that there was a violation. So, I'm going to find that there is a violation of Section 70-21 of Northport City Code for driving through the right-of-way. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum $1,000 will commence on August 18 of 2026, if not bottom of compliance, by August 17 of 2026. I'm going to find that there is a violation of section 2.1.4 of the ULDC for no permit obtained for this freestanding carport that's built and a fine of $25 a day with a maximum of $2,000 will commence on August 18 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 17. Of twenty twenty six, I think that's all the continued cases are now moving on the first year in cases. Casey twenty six zero zero nine one two property owner is John and Nicole Roman and the property addresses thirteen, thirteen wise drive.

I'm George white code for inspector for the seat of Northport and I have been sworn. Case number 2600912 was initially inspected on 3-24-26. This case is addressing the violation of 59.1-B-1 in the PCC prohibited parking commercial vehicle storage on the right-of-way. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 7-15-26. I have had contact with the property owner prior to today. I have five photos to present as evidence. The photos are true and accurate depiction of the property located at 1313 Wise Drive.

All right, I'm going to find that there's a violation of section 59 dash 1 B, 1 in Norfolk City code for the prohibited parking is commercial vehicles, including this trailer. That's in the right away. I find a 10 dollars a day for the maximum 1000 dollars. We'll commence on August 18 of 2026. It's not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. I'm going to find that. There's a violation of Section 59-1 of the Norfolk City Code for, again, not proper allowed parking for the commercial vehicle that's in the driveway. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum $1,000 will commence on August 18 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. Next case is Case CE. 2601226, the property owner is 1 and Jeanette Angeles. The property address is 529 Lovett Rd.

I am Josh Preston, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn. CE case 26-01226 was initially inspected on April 14th, 2026. The case is addressing the violation of prohibited parking in the city right of way. Northport city code 59-1B1. There's a box trailer that is parked or stored in the city right of way. This property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently as of July 20th, 2026. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today, and I have two photographs to present as evidence. The photos are of true and accurate depiction of the property located at 5229 Lovett Road in Northport.

All right. I'm going to file this violation of Section 59-1B1 of the Norfolk City Code for prohibited parking this box trailer that's parked in the city right away. Applied at $10 a day with a maximum $1,000. We'll commence on August 18 of 2026. It's not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. Next CDK is 2601412. The property owner is Josian Clark and the personal ID number is 1128227620.

I'm Tony Breon, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport and I've been sworn. CDK 26-01412 was initially inspected on 4-30-26. Violation is 42-23 MPCC, accumulation of debris. I have had email back and forth with the owner of the property. Nothing has changed there as of late. So, it's pretty much like this. Yes, still like that. I have 11 photos. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions. Most recently on 626 2026.

I have one statement on this one as well. William Kitty, Code Enforcement Field Supervisor. This is right next to the property that we just missed earlier about the fire, so this is some of the same causing area. I just wanted to put that out there about this property.

Right, right, yeah, because she even testified that there was someone basically living there, so all right. So I'm going to file a violation of Section 42-23 of the Norfolk City Code for the accumulation of debris. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum $1,000 will commence on August 18 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. Next CE case 2601434. Property owner is Robert and Kimberly Russell. The property address is 3237 Royal Palm Drive.

Hi, I'm Josh Preston, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of North Portland. I have been sworn. See case 26-01434 was initially inspected on May 1st, 2026. This case is addressing the violation of Florida Building Code R4501.17, the residential swimming barrier requirement. The pool cage is missing numerous screens and no other barriers present surrounding the pool. The pool has been deemed unsafe and poses a public safety hazard. Also, IPMC 2021-304, exterior structures, unsafe conditions for the roofing. The roof is in the state of disrepair. Numerous roof tiles are broken, missing, and poses a threat to public safety. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently at 7-21-26. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today, and I have 12 photographs to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 3237 Royal Palm Drive, Northport. Okay. Looks like this property has been abandoned for some time. There's loose shingles that are continually falling off. There's loose tiles on the ground sliding off the roof.

Looks like it was a nice house at one point in time. It was.

It was in a nice area.

Yeah. OK, I'm going to find that there's a violation of section R4502.17 of the Florida building code for the unsafe pool, a fine of $250 a day with no max. We'll commence. Oh, that's it. Oh, it says unsafe. That's why. OK. Sorry. But $50 a day for the maximum of $5,000 will commence on August 18 of 2026, if not brought in compliance by August 17 of 2026. And I'm going to find there's a violation of Section 304.1.1 of the IPMC, which is also part of the Florida Building Code, for unsafe conditions with, again, this, this, this roof that's in complete disrepair. Tiles could fly off it. All kinds of damage could happen to adjoining property. A fine of $250 a day with no max will commence on August 18 of 2026 if not brought into compliance by August 17, 2026. Next is CE case 2601439. Property owner is David Bates. The property address is 4255 Grove Street.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is Gavin O'Neill. I'm a code enforcement inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn to the CE case 26-01439, initially inspected on 5-4 of 2026. This is in violation of 42-23 of Northport City Code, accumulation of debris. uh the property has been inspected on multiple occasions by myself yesterday july 22nd uh i have four photos to present as evidence and these photos are true and accurate depiction of the property located at 4255 grove street in north port florida okay based upon the photographic evidence i'm gonna find that uh there is a violation of 42-23 norfolk city code for accumulation of debris a fine of ten dollars a day with a maximum one thousand dollars will commence on

August 18 of 2026 if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. Next CE case 2601447. Property owner is Mania and Raul Lejeune and the property address is 6220 Fronda Avenue.

Yes, I'm Robert Harrelson, Code Enforcement Inspector of the City of Northport. I have been sworn CE case number 26-01447 initially inspected on 5-5-26. The case is addressing the violation of prohibited and operable vehicle and illicit discharges. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions and most recently on 7-20-26. I have five photos to present as evidence. They're true and accurate depiction of the property located at 6220 Fronda Avenue in Northport, Florida.

All right. I'm going to find that there's a violation of 59-1B4, the Norfolk City Code for prohibited parking. These vehicles with no license tags. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on August 18 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. Uh, 26. And then, um, we're gonna find there's a violation of Section 78-95 of the Norfolk City Code for illicit, um, discharges. It looks like, you know, oil that's been discharged on the property and, um, and getting over. into the yard as well as tires sitting around, that type of thing. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on August 18 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. Next is CE case 2601453. The property address is Neil and Elizabeth Randall. The property address is 3694 Crandon Road.

I am Tony Breon, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. CE case 26-01453 was initially inspected on 5-6-26. This case is addressing the violation of permit required 105.1 Florida Building Code. Also, certificate of CZZ required 2.2.5 of the ULDC. Probably has been expected on multiple occasions. Most recently on 713 of 10 photos to present as evidence. The phones are true and accurate depiction of the property located at 3694 Crandon Road.

Okay, I'm going to buy a violation. I just have this is a question and if you don't know the answer, that's fine. If this is a cheeky that's constructed by the Seminole Indian tribe. My understanding is those are exempt from permitting requirements. Does anyone know the answer to that?

The last time I spoke with Kyle Hoffman from Planning and Zoning, they do have to submit proof of it. And if so, then it wouldn't be found. Right. Okay. Yeah.

Again, so that's how they bring this in compliance, if that's how this thing was constructed. Thank you. That was just a curiosity question. Nothing to do with my decision. I'm going to find there's a violation of 105.1 of the Florida building. code for permit required uh for this you know tiki hut you know uh structure in the backyard with some other things accessory to it a fine of fifty dollars a day with a maximum of five thousand dollars will commence on august 18 of 2026 if not brought into compliance by august 17 of 2026 and um i'm going to find there's a violation of section 2.2.5 of the uldc for um failure to have a certificate of zoning compliance, again, related to the same structures that are on this property, a fine of $25 a day with a maximum of $5,000 will commence on, no, excuse me, $2,000, maximum of $2,000 will commence on August 18 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. Next, CE case 2601471. Property owner is Lewis Tucker and Rosalynn Buckton Tucker, and the property address is 4491 LaFrance Avenue.

I'm Tony Brion, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport and I've been sworn CE case 26-1471 when it was initially inspected on 5-8-2026. Violation description is accumulation of debris 42-23 MPCC. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 6-10-2026. I have nine photos to present as evidence. The photos are true and accurate depiction of property located at 4491 LaFrance Avenue. Okay.

Looks like unless he gets both, there's going to be another one coming back. Yes. I'm going to find there's a violation of 42-23 Norfolk City Code for the accumulation of debris on this property. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on August 18 of 2026 if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. Next is CD case 2601527. Property owner is Bethel Solar, LLC. The property address is 3259 Bazuko Avenue.

Josh Preston, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. CE case 26-01527 was initially inspected on May 12, 2026. The case is addressing the violation of Northport City Code accumulation of debris. There's debris in the property consisting of large piles of construction material, no waste containment on site. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently as of July 17, 2026. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today, and I have three photographs to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 3259 Masuko Avenue.

All right, I'm going to file there's a violation of 42-23 of Norfolk city code for this accumulation of re, that's in the front yard of this construction site, a fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000. We'll commence on August 18 of 2026. It's not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. Next is case 26 01529. The property owner is. Barbara Perkowski, and the property address is 7873 McPhail Avenue.

I'm George White, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 2601529 was initially inspected on 5-12-26. This case is addressing the violations of 42-23 NPCC accumulation of debris. IMPC 2021.304, exterior of the structure roofing. 59-1B4, NPCC, prohibited parking of an inoperable vehicle. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 7-15-26. 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 7873 McPhail Avenue. Alright, I remember that car.

Alright, violation of 42-23 of Northport City Code accumulation debris. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum $1,000 will commence on August 18 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. I'm going to find a violation of 304.1.1 of the IPMC for the unsafe conditions. There's all this, you know, unclear debris on the roof and roof and disrepair. A fine of $250 with no max will commence on August 18 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. And then. So, I thought that the car was a prior case, but I guess it wasn't. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no If it's still there, it'll come back as a continued repeat violation, but for this case, we will dismiss that one. All right? Wow, I got a good memory, don't I? Well, that's such a unique car, so it's kind of hard to miss. A, CE case 2601556. The property owner is Benny Montanaro, and the property address is 5573 Kismet Terrace.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is Gavin O'Neill, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. CE case 26-01556 was initially inspected on 5-13 of 2026. This violation includes 59-1 subsection B1 of the Northport City Code prohibited parking in the right-of-way. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today. However, there have been multiple inspections, most recently yesterday, July 22nd, 2026. I have five photos to present as evidence, and the photos are true and accurate depiction of the property located at 5579 Kismet Terrace in Northport, Florida.

All right, I'm going to find there's a violation of 59-1B1 of the Norfolk City Code for this trailer parked in the city right away, which is prohibited. I find it $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000.00. will commence on August 18 of 2026 if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. Next is CE case 2601559. The property owner is Christopher Overstreet and Jessica Claydon and the property address is 4825 Escalante Drive.

Yes, my name is Gavin O'Neill, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport. I have been sworn. CE case 26-01559 was initially inspected on 5-13 of 2026. Violation is 70-56H of Northport City Code assigned numbers. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently July 22nd of 2026. I've had no contact with the property owner prior to today. Four photos to present as evidence. The photos are true and accurate depiction of the property located at 4825 Escalante Drive. Okay.

Looks like there was a place where there were numbers in the past just below the light. outside the door, I'm going to file a violation of Section 70-56H of the Norfolk City Code for failure to have assigned numbers visible from the street, a fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000. We'll commence on August 18 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. Next is CEK 2601580. The property owner is Florida 3 Management, LLC. The property address is 2173 Howlum Street.

I'm Josh Preston, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport and I have been sworn. CEK 2601580 was initially inspected on May 18th, 2028. This case is addressing the violations of North Port City Code 62-50, proper placement of containers. North Port City Code 42-23, accumulation of debris. and for the building code 105.1 permit required for hot water heater replaced without proper permitting. It should be noted the first two placement of containers.

Is this, we're on the right case here? Yep. I got refuse containers and accumulation of debris.

Yep, so as you see here.

Oh yeah, it's the last one, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

Okay. So the containers and the debris have since come into compliance. However, as you can see there, a hot water heater had been replaced without permitting, and as of the 20th of this month, no permit has been applied for to this date. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today, and there are one photo to present as evidence, which is a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 2173 Alton.

Again, I'm going to take in the evidence that the photograph of an old water heater sitting in the city right away to be picked up that there must be a replacement hot water tank or water heater inside the building. I'm going to find that there is a violation of Section 105.1 of the Board of Building Code, permit required for hot water heater. A fine of $50 a day with a maximum of $5,000 will commence on August 18 of 2026 if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. Should be a pretty easy permit to obtain.

Your Honor, one other thing. The first two violations, if we could find the violation existed, even though they are in compliance now. All right. Let's find the violation.

So I'll make a determination that the refugee containers were And they went there, they were actually were on the other side of the street. They were a bit of belong to their residents.

They were actually even tagged at 1 point by solid waste. Okay. Yeah.

So anyway, that they're, they're not in the, you know, in the proper location. On the non pickup days again, going to make a finding that. As of today, that's in compliance, but there was evidence that, based upon these photographs, that they were not in compliance based on the photographs and testimony. And likewise, yeah, that there was a violation for accumulation of, this looks like, that was yard debris, I guess, right? Correct. Yeah, yard debris in the city right away. And again, it's in compliance as of today. but when this photograph was taken and based upon the testimony, it was not in compliance as of that date. Next CEK is 2601585. Property owner is Bethel Solar LLC and the property address is 3165 Stockton Avenue.

I am Tony Breon, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. CE Case 26-1585 was initially inspected on 5-18-2026. This case is addressing the violation of 42-23 MPCC, accumulation of debris. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 6-26-2026. I've had no prior contact with the property or no prior to today. I have seven photos present of evidence. The photos are true and accurate depiction of the property located at 3165 Stockton Avenue.

Okay, I'm going to find that there is a violation of section 42-23 of the Norfolk City Code for accumulation of debris. Looks like most of it is construction material debris that, and then I guess this is an abandoned project. So, fine of ten dollars a day with a maximum of one thousand dollars will commence on August 18 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. Next is 26. 01590. Also, that's the solar LLC and the property address is 1501. Marasco lane.

Yes, Your Honor. My name is Gavin O'Neill, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport. I've been sworn. CE case 26-01590 was initially inspected on 5-18 of 2026. Violation includes 42-23 of Northport City Code accumulation of debris. Property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently yesterday, July 22nd, 2026. I've had no contact with the property owner prior to today. I have three photos present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 1501 Morosco Lane.

OK, so the photos that was just before this one, was that the prior case? Oh, yeah. So is that the same house? And did it get worse? Which one? So that's June 8. And then the next one is June. Oh, so they made some improvement. They did. Right, but there's still debris there. Okay. I'm going to find that there is a violation of 42-23 of Norfolk City Code. Again, indicating that they have made some improvement, but there's still construction debris that's in there. essentially the front yard of this house that's under construction, a fine of $10 a day with a maximum $1,000 will commence on August 18 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. Next, CE case 2601591, also Bethel Solar LLC, parcel ID number 1005011118,

Yes, Your Honor. My name is Gavin O'Neill, Code Force Inspector for the City of Northport. I have been sworn. CE case 2601591 was initially inspected on 5-18 of 2026. The violation includes 42-23 of Northport City Code, accumulation of debris. Property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently yesterday, July 22nd of 2026. I've had no contact with the property owner prior to today. I have three orders to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at parcel ID 150-1111-18.

All right, so I'm going to find there's a violation of section 42-23 of Norfolk City Code for this accumulation of debris. Again, basically construction debris in the front yard of this uncompleted house. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on August 18 of 2026 if not brought in to compliance by August 17 of 2026. Next is CE case 2601593. The property owner is Raywood Trust 11 and the parcel, the property address is 1778 Raywood Avenue.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is Gavin O'Neill, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. CE case 2601593 was initially inspected on 5-18 of 2026. The violation includes 70-56H of Northport City Code assigned numbers. The numbers are blocked right there and not visible from the property. Right.

All right. So I'm going to file a violation of Section 70-56H of the North Port City Code for assigned numbers not being visible from the street. The corrective action obviously will be to trim that palm tree that's blocking them right now. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on August 18 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. Next CEK is 2601604. The property owner is Thomas Lagasse. The property address is 5846 Spearman Circle.

I am Robert Harrelson, code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn to e-case number 26-01604, initially inspected on 5-19-26. Case is addressing the violation of accumulation of debris, violation code 42-23-NPCC. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 720 of 26. I have not had any contact with the property owner prior to today. I have five photographs presented as evidence, photos of true and accurate depictions of the property located at 5846 Spearman Circle, Northport.

I'm going to file a violation of Section 42-23 of the Norfolk City Code for accumulation of debris, all this debris that's on the side yard of this house. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum $1,000 will commence on August 18 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 17. of 2026. Next CEK is 2601616. The property owner is Walter Potts. The parcel ID number is 1121246213. MR.

Your Honor, I spoke with that property owner yesterday, and he's currently working with the arborist and going through the permitting process, so he asked for a continuation until next month, please. MR. All right.

We will continue this case to the August 27, 2026 hearing. Next is CE Case 26-01624. The property owner is Avery Francis. The parcel, the property address is 7924 Jeffrey Avenue.

I am Robert Harrelson, Code Enforcement Inspector of the City of Northport, and I have been sworn. CEK 26-01624 was initially inspected on 5-21-26. The case is addressing a violation of permit required, violation 105.1 Florida Building Code permit required. Property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently as of July 20th, 2026. I have four photographs to present as evidence. Photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 7924 Jeffrey Avenue in Northport, Florida.

All right. I'm going to find that there is a violation of Section 105.1 of the Board Building Code. There's the evidence that the old windows were still leaning up against the property and that obviously new windows installed and there's no permit. A fine of $50 a day with a maximum of $5,000 will commence on August 18th. of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. I'll just read this one in the compliance, I guess. Yeah, CE case 2601640. That case is in compliance. Next is CE case 2601650. The property owner is Avenir Vashelchuk and the property address is 4862 Kiska Road.

I'm Josh Preston, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport and I have been sworn CE case 26-01650 was initially inspected on May 27, 2026. This case is addressing the violation of Northport City Code 59-1B1, prohibited parking in the city right of way and prohibited, I'm sorry, Northport City Code 59-1C1 also prohibited parking limitations. There were two commercial vehicles being large tow trucks that were parked in the city right away. It should be noted this has since come into compliance, but I'm asking you to find the violation so we can go after repeat offenses in the future.

And I just got to ask one other question. What is the slight distinction between 59-1B1 and 59-1C1?

Well, one would be just parking in the city right away in general, being a truck, boat, trailer, whatever, which that is the offense, and also he's parking a commercial vehicle.

Oh, and the other one is a commercial vehicle. Yes. Got it. Yeah, it says when I read the narrative, it reads exactly the same, so it's kind of hard to tell.

Yeah. They are now asking for the violation.

Certainly, as of May 22nd of 2026, when these photographs were taken, there was a violation of 59, 1, B, 1 of the Norfolk City Code and 59, 1. See, 1 North port city code for the vehicle part in the right away and just vehicles part in the right away. They're in compliance as of today, but as of May 27, 2026, there was, they were in violation. All right, I'm going to read into compliance or, uh, this is a continuation request. I'm sorry. 26 01666 property. There's Randy and Ashley. Well, personal ID number is 096408 3122.

I'm Tony for the force inspector for the city of local and I've been sworn 26 to 0166. I've spoken with the property owner there and we're requesting to continue.

To the next hearing? To the next hearing, yes. Okay, we'll continue this case to August 27, 2026. All right. Next is CE case 2601752. The property owner is Benny Maldonado and the property address is 1937 Allegheny Lane.

I am Tony brown code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport. I've been sworn case 26, 01752. Once again, we have spoken with the property owner and we're requesting to continue.

Okay. They're going to try to get an after the fact permit. We'll continue this case to the August 27th hearing. Next is case twenty six zero one seven five zero. The property owner is jury on LLC. The property address is two, two, four, eight and Arbor road.

I'm totally green code enforcement inspector for the city of Northport and I've been sworn to six zero one seven five zero was initially inspected on six to twenty, twenty six. The case is addressing the violation of 42-23 MPCC accumulation of debris. The property has been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently on 6-26-2026. I have not had contact with the property prior to today. I have four photos to present as evidence. The photos are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 2248 Ann Arbor Road.

All right. I'm going to file a violation of Section 42-23 of Norfolk City Code for accumulation of debris on this property. It's a combination of yard debris, construction debris, and just general trash. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum $1,000 commence on August 18 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. Next is CE case 2601780. Sorry. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. Our property owner is Aubrey New Services, LLC. The property address is 2690 Inland Avenue.

I'm Josh Preston, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of North Port and High Heavens Foreign. Case number CEK8626-01780 was initially inspected on June 2nd, 2026. This case is addressing the violation of North Port City Code 42-23, accumulation of debris. The debris is consisting of construction material waste and a downed silt fence. The property's been inspected on multiple occasions, most recently as of July 17th, 2026. I have not had contact with the property owner prior to today. I have three photographs that present as evidence, which are a true and accurate depiction of the property located at 2690 Inland Avenue.

All right, I'm going to file a violation in section 42-23 of the New York City Code for accumulation of debris, mostly construction debris that's in the front of this house. that's partially under construction. Looks like it's abandoned, but it started. A fine of $10 a day with a maximum of $1,000 will commence on August 18 of 2026, if not brought into compliance by August 17 of 2026. I want to read into compliance. CEK is 2600828. Property owner is St. Holmes USA LLC and the property address is 2768 Dode Avenue. And that was the second, we are now in second hearing cases. So next is CE case 2600864. The property owner is D7 Norport, LLC. The parcel ID is 0990028508.

I'm Josh Preston, Code and Forge Inspector for the City of North Portland. I have been sworn CE case 26-00864 was initially inspected on March 19th, 2026. It was also found in violation at the June 25th, 2026 hearing. There have been no changes to the property and I request that you assess the fines.

I will sign the order assessing the fines. Do I need to read the next one in compliance? Okay. CE case 2601047, property owner Bernice Rhodes, partial ID 9669066012 is in compliance. Next CEK is 2601122. The property owner is Enrique Ruiz and Jose Beltran and the parcel, our property address is 8616 Portobello Avenue.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is Gavin O'Neill, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport. I've been sworn case number 26-01122 was found in violation in June 25 of 2026 hearing. There have been no changes to the property in regards to the assigned house numbers, so I request that you sign the order assessing the fines. I will sign the order assessing the fines.

The next is CEK is 2601182. Property owner is Zara Property Group, LLC. Property address is 5893 Mayberry Avenue. And I'll read, yeah, I'll go back. I'll go back after we do this one.

My name is Gavin O'Neill, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Northport. I've been sworn case number 26-01182 is found in violation at the 06-25-2026 hearing. There have been no changes to the property with offense and disrepair. I request that you sign the order assessing the fine.

I will sign the order assessing the fine. Going up above that one, CE case 26-01182. 0-1-1-5-0. The property owner is Oyged SRQ LLC and the property address is 2467 Allslip Terrace. I'm going to read that that property has been brought into compliance. Yes. Next is CE case 26-0-1-2-7-0. Property owner is Ronnie Mazur and the property address is 7525 Tasco Drive.

I'm Robert Harrelson, code force inspector for the city of Northport, and I have been sworn. Case number 26-013, correction 127-0, was in violation. At the 6-25-26 hearing, there have been no changes to the property, and I request that you sign the order.

I will sign the order assessing the fine. Next is CE case 2601320. The 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. It was also found in violation at the June 25th, 2026 hearing. There have been no changes to the property, and I request that you assess the fines, please.

I will sign the order assessing the fines. Next is CEK 2601375. The property owner is GZ Installation, LLC. The parcel ID number is 1149211816.

I'm Tony Brown, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Norfolk, and I've been sworn. CE case 26-1375 was initially inspected on 4-28-26. It was found in violation of 6-25-2026. There have been no changes to the property at this time. Request that you assess the fines.

I will sign the order assessing the fines. Next is CE case 2601391. The property owner is Nicolo D'Amelio and Amy Rella. The property address is 7027 De Britta Road.

I am Robert Harrelson, code force inspector for the City of Northport and have been sworn. Case number 26-01391 was found in violation at the 62526 hearing. There have been no changes and I request that you sign the order.

I will sign the order assessing the fines.

Your Honor, just to interrupt, the RV has been moved, the permit, the shed is still present.

Okay, so, let's see here.

The shed behind the RV has been taken off the property. Behind her is a small trailer that was removed.

Okay, so we're going to find that the 59-1C1 in the Northport City Code parking, that that has been brought into compliance? Yes, sir. But nothing else has? Right. All right, so I'm going to sign the order assessing the fines against the others, and we will note that the other one is in compliance. Did I miss anything? No. Okay, all right, yeah, so just give us a moment while I just make sure we haven't missed any. We're good? Okay. And I don't see any public comment cards. It is 1151 and we are adjourned. Thank you all. That was a long one. Good job. Good job.