Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Like to call the 04/09/2026 meeting for the construction board of appeals for the city of Port St. Lucie to order. Can we have the roll call?

Chair Williams?

Here.

Vice Chair Larson? Here. Chair Pro Tem Mahood?

Here.

Miss Silvestri? Here. Mister Ilk? Here. Mister Martinez? Here. Miss Kege? Here.

You are swearing in a staff?

Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you offer today is the truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you.

The termination of quorum, we do have. Can we all stand 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.

Moving

on to item six, approval of the minutes. Do I hear any changes to the minutes or motion to approve?

Excuse

me, real quick. Before we get into this, Can we do oath of office for Ms. Kagey so that way she can also vote on any items that are on the agenda?

Do we need to formally motion to move that item forward in the agenda or are we okay going without?

No, it wouldn't hurt to move it onto the agenda.

You mean to move it up?

Yeah, is it on the agenda? Yeah, just further down. Okay. Just move to oh,

well, actually, no. If it's on the agenda, that's within the discretion of the chair.

Okay. So I will proceed to item nine then. Well, nine a specifically. Can we have the oaths of office?

Miss Kiki, please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that you will support, protect, and defend the constitution and government of The United States in the state of Florida, and that you will bear true faith, loyalty, and allegiance to the same, and that you are entitled to

hold office under the constitution and laws of the state of Florida and that

you will faithfully perform all the duties of a member of the construction board of appeals of the city of Port St. Lucie, Florida, so help you God. Yes, I do.

Right. Returning to Item 6A, any changes to the minutes or comments on the minutes?

Yes, Chair. I have in the last January 8 meeting of the Board under Item 9C of those minutes, I asked if the staff would check into the anonymity of people who call in for complaints about unlicensed contractors since I handed you a sheet that the state does allow it and we were supposed to find out if the city could do the same as the state. Because presently, the city does not. We

did receive a response from our legal division. And if we haven't forwarded that to you already via email then we will make sure that that does get forwarded.

Forwarded meaning to me personally or to the board?

We can send it to all board members for clarity.

Do you know what it is? Can you say it?

Offhand, I don't know, but it doesn't apply to us at this point. It's a determination by the state and it's from our legal division, so I don't have it in front of me at this time.

Can it be put on the agenda for next week, next meeting?

I could do that, yeah.

Thank you. I make a motion to approve the minutes.

I second it.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Approved. Item seven, any additions or deletions to the agenda?

No, there are no additions or deletions.

Thank you. Item eight, approval of the consent agenda.

I make a motion to approve the consent agenda item 8A and 8B. I second that.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Item nine, new business. We've already covered oath of office. Is there any other new business from the city?

No. No.

Okay. Item 10, quasi judicial hearing. 10A, the appeal of the decision for the building official from A Great Home LLC, Derek Bailey. If you want to step to the podium, sir.

Also to discuss any information on behalf of the building department, we have our Chief Plans Examiner, Eddie Groenwald, to speak for building.

Okay. So if we could have Mr. Bailey sworn in.

Behind. Oh, sorry.

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you offer today is the truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

And please state your name

for the record.

Garrett Bailey.

Thank you.

And, sir, are you legal counsel? Yes. Okay. Do we need him sworn in or anything like that, or is he good to go? Okay.

Alright. Thank you.

Alright. We'll proceed with the city first and then hear the appeal from mister Bailey.

My name is Edward Grunwalt with the City of Port St. Lucie Building Department. So building permit fees are based on a valuation that's established from the ICC code council. It's adopted into ordinance Section 150, subsection one hundred nine point seven point two. Mr.

Bailey is challenging the valuation assigned to its building based on square footage use and construction type. The city has found that building valuation pursuant to the adopted ordinance in the February 2023 ICC Code Council spreadsheets is 3,549,977.1. And his building permit fees are established based off of that. So with that being said, that's where we stand. Mr. Bailey wants to challenge that.

And what is the amount of the permit? Is it the $26,451?

So the total fees due on the or owed on the property or on the project were $26,451.

Okay. Mr. Bailey, you're on.

Yes. So this is how I look at it. In regards to how they come up with the value of the building, I'm at about onethree of what they're coming up with. I'm a CGC myself. I'm not subbing this out to a GC and paying whatever their percentage is and whatnot.

Also, the shell of the building is all red iron, whereas I haven't seen an official breakdown of how they do it. However, they're comparing my building to, for example, a poor concrete block building, which you're probably 3x the cost. Red iron at the time ran me about $0.02 $5,000,000 whereas if you do all concrete block, you're probably $1,200,000 Concrete block is probably going to last you over one hundred years. My red iron, on average, probably going to get forty years out of it. So the best analogy of how I can present this and where I'm coming from is similar to buying a Corvette.

I bought a base model for $65,000 but yet I'm getting hit over the head for buying a Z06 at a dealer fee of 200,000 plus. I'll give you a quick example. Normal AC unit on that building probably run you about $70,000 I did all mini splits on it, which cost me $5,700 or $5,771 It's simply framed out. You drop the mini split in the hole, fasten it, that's it. So I did several things like that throughout the entire building in order to save money.

So I shouldn't have to pay top dollar because I'm able to build my commercial buildings cheaper than someone that's subbing it out to a GC. When I look up the definition of construction value, that definition is whatever the value is to the owner to, in this case, build this building. So in my opinion, I just think their value of construction or the value of the building is way overrated or way over calculated, I should say.

So one question I do have, you're not challenging anything relative to the size of the structure?

No, no, not at all.

So with that in mind, are you actually challenging the building officials interpretation or are you challenging the ordinance itself? Because as I read the ordinance one zero nine point seven point two d, it even notes that it's only intended to reflect the size of the building, not the materials that are used or anything of the like. So that's why I'm asking, are you actually challenging the ordinance, or are you challenging the building officials' interpretation of the ordinance?

It's an interpretation as opposed to the actual ordinance. Because it also takes

He has

to be sworn in if he's gonna speak. Right? No.

An attorney.

Okay. That's why I asked that earlier.

Not only does it take into account the square footage, but also the construction materials as well, the type of construction. Here, my client's saying his building is akin, essentially, to a shell construction as opposed to what the city has calculated. Substantially less. Unreasonable, in our opinion, the calculation that the city has, given the actual cost that my client incurred to construct the building.

Don't give you 20% discount for the shell?

For the shell, there should be a deduction if it's construed to be the shell.

So sir, you have a 30,000 square foot building?

Correct.

That their the valuation is being assessed at $100 $110 a square foot?

Roughly, correct. Something like that? Yes.

I think that's pretty fair.

When you look at my costs, I don't.

110,000?

Correct.

For 30,000 square foot building?

Correct.

I can think back fifteen years, I did a 6,000 square foot middle building in St. Lucie County and it was $18,000 for the permit. Who me? This is 30,000. So I I don't see it. It's my opinion. I'm also a GSA. I

have a question. You're challenging that it cost you less to build because you did the work yourself. If I understand that correct?

Correct. To a point, correct. My costs on putting the building together and whatnot were significantly lower than what they're coming up with.

So what you're looking at is that the city takes a look at each project and see whether the the contractor or whoever builds it is doing it himself and saving money. Should they is that what you're asking to the city to do? Well well To reduce the fees because you build it yourself and save money?

Well, yes, I'm looking at it like this. If I built this out of let's say money was no object and I did pour concrete block or whatnot. Now the lifespan of this building is probably one hundred plus years. I used all red iron on it. There's which is done significantly cheaper.

So on average, you're going to get about forty years out of red iron. And once again, it goes back to the analogy of buying a vehicle. I bought a base model, but I feel like I'm being charged for buying the Z06 with all the options and this, that and the other. In my opinion, I think it should be looked at what my actual costs were to the value of construction, what I actually paid to build that building. Once again, if I wasn't a CGC, and I subbed it out to a general contractor and had them build it for me and whatnot, then his valuation, I think, would be spot on. But that's not the case here.

Well, if you were going to sell this building, what value would you put on the building?

Well, the housing market's in the No, no,

But would you put $100 a square foot? Because that would be comparable to another building. I mean, you have to think about that. Just because you build it yourself doesn't mean that the value is less. The value is still the same as a comparable building.

Well, we're talking construction value versus what I can sell it for. It's two completely different things.

But you're still talking about the value of the building itself.

The construction value.

Right. Well, no, the value of the building, the value of the building.

So do you guys base what we pay in regards to fees based on what we can sell it for?

No, that's not true. Okay.

So let me touch on this. The ICC building valuation data that we utilize that's adopted through ordinance, provides an average construction cost across the board. We're not talking about actual construction costs. We're talking about building valuation. The average cost it would for the construction type for that use across this is international code.

It's applied everywhere. So we don't take into consideration what the hard cost is from the builder. Some builders turn in valuations to me that are 10x what we would cost out, and they get their permit at what we cost out. So like Ms. Silvestri was saying, you save money because you did it yourself. So if I was to have you do it for me, it would cost me this much. We don't take in consideration that variable of who did it for what and what materials they chose. So that's how it's done.

Question for the city. Do you take into consideration whether it's block or metal?

So it's established by building construction type. So in the Florida Building Code, there are five different types and two subtypes for each one of those five types. Within those construction classifications is an allowable type of material that can be used for certain things. It establishes size of building, heights of building, type of fire rating that may be required on the exterior of the building, so on and so forth. Within that grouping could be metal, could be block, could be wood. In this case, in a Type 3B construction, you couldn't build it out of wood frame.

You could not.

The external exterior frame couldn't be a combustible material

Because of

the height of the wall. Because of the square footage.

Square footage.

Right. So the more risk that's in the construction type, the smaller the footprint can be because of the risk to

What is that cutoff?

You would ask me that. I can find it for you. It's variable. I have a table that has classification of occupancy and every type of construction. The

answer is yes. You do take that into account. Yes. So there is other multiples that are higher and there's other multiples that are lower.

There is.

There is. I just want to clarify on that answer because I the way that I understand and the research that I've done, I would disagree with that. If I would have built this building out of poor concrete block and where it would have cost me three times more to go that route than red iron, these calculations are going to be the exact same. That's my understanding with the research that I've done.

So I don't think if I'm not misunderstanding, I don't think he's disagreeing with I think he's saying if that falls under that same 10 categories, it's under that same category, the multiplier They is

only look at what the win rating is, is it for 145, 160. It has to meet the code. So whether you use metal or block or wood doesn't matter. It still have to meet the

And to add to that, the building construction classification type is established by the design professional. So it's on the plans.

It was on the plan.

Factory two, three b construction, it's in the application. I basically take the metrics out and plug them into the box and this is where

it lines up.

Okay.

So kind of going back to this, as I'm looking at your calculations, there's three key factors. You just identified one, which is the ICC valuation, and that is pulled from one of those 10 subcategories from the fine vein and the two sub. Square footage, you would have to challenge based upon how square footage is calculated and the multiplier is the multiplier that's based on that valuation that you submit, correct, that's submitted by the permit. So Mr. Bailey, I would be curious to know which of those three items are you challenging? And what is your calculation saying that's different? Because I think that ultimately is at the core of what determines whether this is a successful or non successful appeal.

My main complaint is just how they come up with the valuation. So and like I said, it just goes back to the analogy I gave of the Corvette. I'm in essence being charged for a souped up model Corvette versus the base model that I built.

Okay. I understand that, but that goes back to my very first question, which means that I was accurate in assuming you're actually challenging the ordinance. You're not challenging in the interpretation of the ordinance, you're not challenging his decision, which is what we're here to determine is we're sure to that board. Make So that's why I wanted that clarification from the start is to know what are we really looking at not that's not on you because I fully understand that the perspective you're providing, but that's why I just wanted clarification on that. So I'll stop talking now and see if anybody else on the board has Mr.

Bailey, what do you think it should be? What square foot evaluation were you thinking?

Significantly, that's why I want to sit down.

So we're at 110. What do you think it should be?

Like I said, my costs were about a third of what they have down now. So I was looking for a discount. In regards to the Shell discount, I don't remember even seeing the Shell discount on there by

So to answer the Shell, not to interrupt you, a Shell building is a structure that cannot receive occupancy.

Okay.

So I could not apply that 20% reduction.

Understood. But like I said, I just wanted to sit down with whoever makes that decision and just get something worked out. I didn't come in here today saying, hey, this is where I'm looking for it to be. I simply wanted a discount because I just don't feel that the valuation and how they calculate it was accurate based on what I actually built out there.

So you're challenging the code itself, how the city procedures are to determine the value. Is that correct?

Well, in a sense, I guess, yes, there is a movement to use actual cost as a variable in these decisions. So essentially,

yes.

If we did that, then every owner builder who built the structure would be significantly less. I mean, I build my own stuff too. And yes, my cost is much different than what it actually costs. Yes, I put my cost when I apply for a permit, but that doesn't mean they're going to go along with it. They'll do their assessment as they do and put the number on it. So it's been my experience, if they're assessing it 3.5 mil, it's really worth almost double that.

Yes. I don't think it's worth that. Don't think it's worth anywhere near that with where everything

is If at you would sell it.

They said if I could get 7,000,007 million plus for it, I'd sell it today.

Well, I mean, as a rule of thumb, I mean, I've seen it as low as that. So yeah, they couldn't they can't I don't think the city can discount owner builders more than the general public out there. And they have to have a certain level that they do that they're consistent with everybody.

Understood. I just think it should be a case by case basis. Take a look at the building. It's a poor concrete block. There's some buildings that are this size where absolutely I could see the price going over $5,000,000 depending on how it's built. I think it should be a case by case basis in regards to how the structure

is built.

Do you have any documentation where you can compare somebody else's building that they gave less that they charge less for? Do you have any?

I haven't reached out to mean, tell

that would

help your case. Certainly. Understood. Mr. Hill.

No, that's kind of what I was going to say. Do you have any information we can compare to as it said is precedent? And if you find that, then you would have a much stronger case, I believe.

Unfortunately, didn't reach out. I know several general contractors around here. Unfortunately, I did not reach out to them to get their actual costs on a similar building. I did not do that.

But I also think you'll find that it's not with what the building official did. Your issue is with what the statute here, the ordinance, and whether that could be changed. And we don't have the authority to change that part of it.

Any additional comments?

Also, there's a cost involved with your labor. You have said you're doing it for free, but actually you're taking time away from something else that you could be. So you have to put a cost on what it costs you. So there is that cost.

I think we open every kind of warm so we can't I think the city has a procedure that they follow for everyone, with every contract or every do it yourself or whatever. And that's what they go by.

That's the

way I feel about it.

Mr. Bailey, have you done work in Port St. Lucie before?

Have I?

Yes.

Oh, absolutely. Yes, I've built 50 plus houses, several commercial buildings around the area, moved here in the late '90s. Yes, I've built all

kinds Okay. Of under houses, buildings, all

those, you haven't had a problem with the fees?

I have I'll say this, I have kind of stomached it in the past. We'll just I'm say

a plumbing contractor, I have to give quotes. And then I find out that this permit is going cost me $400 instead of $100 I go, oh, well, I goof there because it's a different thing. You can't always tell. But since you have a lot of experience here, you know that. And again, it's really the issue with the ordinance that's the problem at this time.

All these commercial buildings, these are all my personal buildings. So I'm not building them for anyone else or whatnot. All the houses I built, I sold those, but the commercial buildings are all mine. So yes, back in the day, being frank with everyone back in the day, I didn't question it. I just wanted to get the building done, this, and the other. And then now I'm really kind of studying the actual money going out that, yeah, now I'm I'm questioning how they're coming up with the valuations, which

Aren't we all?

That's fair enough.

Just to

bail, what what what do you pay for a three bedroom, three bath house permit these days?

Like what do I build it for?

No. What's the permit cost these days?

Oh, like impact fees and everything? It was $20.26 and change, I think it is.

And you're getting a $3,500,000 building for 26?

Once and that's one of the reasons why I got out of it. I won't get into why I stopped building houses. But but but yeah.

I'm just

throwing it out there.

Oh, no. No. Absolutely. Like I said,

I So you have a three bedroom, three bath house that you're selling for 4 or 500, and your fee is 26,000. Here is a 3,500,000 assessed and you're paying 26. Question,

did you have engineering plans for that project?

Yes, of course.

Can you explain to me why would you go with concrete or something cheaper material? Why would that be the case, to save money?

With build,

meet code

and construction?

Correct. Just like the example I gave with the AC units. We use the splits in there just to save money. So instead of spending $70,000 on an AC unit, we spent less than $6,000 So certain things like that.

But is it materials or

is it your labor? The materials are significantly cheaper. Red iron, you're looking at a quarter million versus block, you're over 1,000,000.

Mr. Bailey, I'll just interject real quick. So I mean, obviously, we can have those discussions about construction materials and things like that off I the think for the purposes of keeping with the appeal, I want to ask if there are any other relevant questions associated to the appeal, its calculation of the fee or anything before we or any statements from the city or you Mr. Bailey that are relative to that?

Did I hear that you used the table from '1.

Of And from

with

really any interior mechanicals, MEPs, mechanical, electrical, plumbing. It's literally the structural frame of the building.

Okay. And it wasn't by client's building is not qualified?

If he wants to rent it out and occupy it, then no. Any

further questions or okay. To clarify, just so that Mr. Bailey is aware of this as well. There are three decisions that we can make in a quasi judicial hearing. So I will let everybody know what those are and then any member of the Board can make their motion. We can either affirm the decision of the building official, we can amend it or we cannot affirm it. So those are the three choices. If we amend, we obviously have to recommend what the amendment is. So is there any member of the Board who wishes to move in one of those three directions? Mr. Hill?

I'll make the motion. I'll make a motion that we affirm the Board's decision on this.

I second it.

All in Sorry, the decision of the building official.

Is there any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it.

I wish it was cheaper too.

I appreciate it. We appreciate time

on this.

Yes, we appreciate Mr. Bailey you coming. Obviously, I think that as was stated earlier, I do think if you're looking at things like changing the ordinance or proposing changes to the ordinance, I actually think that you probably will have a lot of colleagues who are with you on that as Wayne kind of alluded So thank you for taking the time.

I appreciate the time. Thank you.

Moving on to item 11A, citation hearing. If we can have Darren come to the stage as well as Victor Rodriguez. And mister Rodriguez, when you get up here, we'll need to swear you in as well. And is this also legal counsel? Yes. Okay.

Please raise your hand.

Do you

swear or affirm the testimony you offer today is the truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

And please state your name for the record.

Victor Rodriguez.

Thank you.

Okay. So we will now hear, investigator Subrian on citation number 32320. So Darren. Yeah.

Good morning. I'm licensed investigator Darren Subrian. I'm bringing the citation 3200320 to the board against Victor Rodriguez. City code sections and state statutes violated were Florida State 489.5311 A, practice contracting unless the person is certified or registered electrical. City code one point five point five three zero point eight eight commence or perform work for which a building permit is required.

Part four of Chapter five fifty three without such building permits being in effect. Scope of work electrical. The date the violation was served was 11/14/2025. The method of service for this citation was certified with regular mail and the compliance date was set for 12/09/2025. The violator was put on the January 8 agenda and reached out soon after requesting to be heard at a meeting.

The building department received a signed citation from the violator on 02/23/2026. Proper notice for the 04/09/2026 meeting was sent out via certified and regular mail. Okay. This case involves a company called Mavistone and Victor Rodriguez. He installed electrical he was a person who was an electrical contractor with no license.

Okay. On November 14, we received a uniform complaint the property owner to say that electrical work was done, the kitchen was installed, electrical work was done at that property. Okay? He says on here that he did he was told from the armed contractor that he's licensed and he's insured. Okay.

In this he did state to them that he had his licenses. He was insured to do electrical work. Okay. When he was doing the kitchen, which case they found out later on. He wasn't he didn't have electrical license. Okay. This was found about four or five years later when we had an inspector go there, look to do an inspection on the circuit, microwave circuit and saw something. He's noticed that it wasn't permits pulled. So at which point we were brought in. We were notified. So we started looking into it. And then we saw that this work was done, I think it's 2021. We subsequently looked in to see what was done. There was no permits pulled. There was electrical work.

There's photos. I'm going to show you all of this in a minute, but this is just to give you a rough idea. An estimate was given to the homeowner, and as you can see on there, it says that it's going to relocate electrical switches, outlets, cooker top, oven, microwave. And of note as well, on the estimate, there's no license. You can't see a license on there as electrical contractor doing electrical work.

Okay. Go back to this. All his advertising, cards, tickets, whatever, he doesn't have any licenses on there showing that he can do electrical contracting work. Okay? Just as he does stonework, kitchens and such like. I checked on DBPR to see if he had a record on there. If he we had no record of him on DBPR neither. Okay. So continue to investigate. I looked I looked him up on some biz.

He was on some biz. Me show you that as well. There he is. He's on the sunbath. There. You can see he's on sunbath, but he's got no electrical license at all. At this point, we did a citation. We've formed a citation. The compliance date was December 9, and this was sent out to him then. I did reach out to Mr.

Rodriguez. I spoke to his office, and I spoke to his contract manager. I think his name was Dustin or Justin. I'm not sure. Can't remember the name exactly. But no one ever called me back. Okay. Tried to reach out to him to explain to him the situation. I didn't receive a callback. So I advised them that we were sending out a citation and he will get it in the mail.

He did reach back out to the office and spoke to one of the office staff on November 26 and they and he was advised that it's a process that he has to go through to, you know, to get this thing sorted, to pay this off. Since then, he just been back in contact with the office again, and he required a hearing. Now I'm just going to show you some of these images. We go. You can see some images here some of the workers, whoever was in there at that time doing the work.

The property owner was they took a good few photos and they put them on. They sent them to us as the work was progressing, they said. I've got a bit closer. What's interesting about this photo, there was the guy in the middle which is like doing some he's like channeling the floor. You'll see come the next photo where that's relevant.

There, you can see he's run a cable in there. Okay, so they've been doing rough wiring at that point there and he's fixing to do. I don't know what but you can see they're doing the wiring there. That's the old kitchen. This is not really showing that much but there you can see this gentleman in the center is holding a cable.

He's doing some kind of wiring. You can see he seemed like the guy in all the photos that's basically doing the wiring. If he's one of his employees, I don't know, but basically he's contracting as an electrical contractor and he hasn't got a license. He shouldn't be doing it. Once again, the same gentleman is working on wires there, stripping, making connections, whatever.

Again, he's doing stuff back there. Once again, he's wiring again. This looks like this is the finished kitchen, but the issue was where I'm just going to put the arrow, I think that's where the microwave mat was supposed to go. I'm not sure. But this is where drew the our inspector's attention when he saw the wiring wasn't up to code. It was something to do with the box. It was something. And then he looked and he saw, there's no permits in here. So this this guy basically did this whole kitchen back in 2021. No no electrical permits, no permits, period.

There was nothing on our record at all for a brand new kitchen. And I don't think that the homeowner wasn't aware of it until 2025, right? So let's wait to see. Is it the moment with this?

Okay. Thank you, Inspector or Investigator O'Brien. Mr. Rodriguez? Are you asking clarification question?

No. A testimony question. He's testified. Correct? Yes. Okay. So then I'd just like to ask you a question.

Could you please, speak into the microphone, please? Sorry. Thank you.

Do you know if the homeowner had other contractors licensed or unlicensed on the project at the time that these photos were taken?

No. Do you

know if the homeowner had other work done between '21 and 2025 when they reached out to you?

No. But going back to your previous question, the estimate for the job came from Mavitt.

I understand.

And they said this is the work. What they're saying is they're acting as a contractor, and they're saying that this is the work we can do. We we are you can contract us to do electrical when we haven't got a license.

Do you know if that was actually running wires that required a permit or simply reattaching or fixing the outlets to the cabinets that came in?

There was you can clearly see from the photo that it was fresh wiring.

But you don't know who did that work. You don't know who those employees are. Correct?

Well, Mavitt tried they they put themselves forward as a contract to do the electrical work. Anyone that was in

there They stated relocate onto the new cabinets. They did not say anything about electrical panel. Correct?

It wasn't this isn't for a panel.

No. I understand. Are you aware that the homeowner had an electrical panel rewired to the house with a non licensed contractor?

Right. The electrical subpanel that was in there was inspected. It wasn't a licensed electrician did it because we had an inspection on that panel.

When?

This was in October 2025.

I'm That's when sorry. Are you aware that the homeowner actually had an unlicensed electrical contractor out there while Mavitt was out? They're prepared to testify to it that actually put that panel in and left live wires around the

house. We're not that's

not the What's in question

is that My question

is are you aware of whether or not the homeowner, and I have mister Mabet mister Rodriguez prepared to testify, that there was an unlicensed electrical contractor hired by the homeowner out at the time who was running wiring from the panel to the kitchen and moving electrical around. That had nothing to do with what they were doing.

Right. From from the evidence I had, right, we can only go on what we got.

I understand.

So what we have said that it was unlicensed electrical work. We've got photos showing work being done. Okay? We've got an estimate yeah. Showing that That he's going to be doing he's he's he's stating on that that estimate that he's going to be doing electrical work.

Mr. Subbrien, if I may, you need to add two more charges to this, which is acting in the capacity of a GC and acting in the capacity of a plumber.

And based on

Only because it's on the contract. You cannot write a contract in the state of Florida I understand. Unless you're a licensed GC electric plumbing AC.

That is

He does not have them all. And right here, his writing on the contract, he's acting in the capacity of a general contractor. That alone is is

But I do wanna ask a question because Saint Lucie County has items that do not require a permit. Correct?

If you take cabinets out and put them back exactly where they were before, you do not need a license. But he has moving electrical, moving plumbing

Hold on.

That's a GC.

Is the sink in the same location, mister Rodriguez, as

a It doesn't matter. You're taking walls down. You're moving wires. It's obvious. The configuration

of

the With kitchen no disrespect, if you don't move where the plumbing is, if you simply move the cabinet and reattach a sink

It says relocate. Relocate Okay.

Plumbing. Before we continue down the rabbit hole, mister Rodriguez has not actually provided his testimony yet. So you wanna give him the opportunity to do that first.

Mister Rodriguez, can you tell us about the electrical contractor that the homeowner has hired?

He was already sworn in. Was he? Yes.

Yeah. Good morning, everybody. Hey. So this to fast forward again, going back, the project was in 2021. Fast forward 2025, how this all came to be issue was the homeowner was upgrading their electrical in their house and then discovered issues in the electrical that was done.

As far as my terminology on it, you know, I and the purpose of today's meeting and citation and whatnot, you know, I acknowledge areas of my wording and stuff like that where my lack of experience and ignorance. And when I did this project, I was 21 years old and pretty much wasn't a 100% up to par. And since then, I've now you know, I'm applying for my GC now. I got my books, working with another GC to get qualified and stuff like that. So I'm taking measures to obviously do things properly.

But you meant you were wrong doing this.

Correct. In the sense of how I worded it after further research in knowing how my wording was, yes. Correct. But as far as the citation of the electrical, there I essentially demolished stuff and put stuff with the same exact fixtures and, like, out hey. You know? Hey. Move this outlet down. It's the same outlet that was there relocating in that regard. And then as far as the panel issue, the homeowner themselves brought in somebody to actually do the panel work in which I told them, hey, I don't mess with this. With the in the sense of where in the beginning he stated that I came out up front saying that I am licensed and sure that is a he say, she say.

That was never discussed. Even my invoice states apart from that first item they see there at relocation, my invoice says that I'm not responsible for electrical. I'm not responsible for plumbing and a lot of things right there in which the homeowner signed off on. And then because this issue arise in late twenty twenty five, they came at me saying, oh, said you were licensed, you said you can pull permits, you said you can do plans. I'm like, never did I say that, nor have I ever presented that to you guys.

I have a question. The individuals in these pictures, are they all employees of yours?

No. No. The ones there, the only person there that is my employee is my dad who's sitting back there. He was there just supervising the job. We were telling those guys, hey, this is where the oven's going go. This is where the cooktop is going go. This is the areas that I need these specific things to be in.

What company were they with?

Again, the homeowner himself brought in a person to finalize the electrical. My part was more upon the demolition of things, their electrical, that

But the only person that worked for you was that gentleman back there in these pictures. All the other people in those pictures

Right. Were not one of the guys in the pictures is one of the guys that works for me in the sense of, like, we did the demolition there. So he was the one demolishing things and stuff like that.

But the one the one digging the trench for the electrical.

Yeah. That I'm considering that part of the demolition, digging the trench.

That's my But he's laying the wire.

No. The other guy

The correct the problem is as well. Right? In 2025 when they had to get a licensed electrician, they came and they did a full inspection. They had to fail it and they had to basically rip out the whole kitchen because the conductors were the wrong size and it all multiple different problems there. So they've had to go back, I think rewire the kitchen, which they've now got permits for that. Initially when it failed, you talk about the panel, there was an issue I see with one of the permits that was voided and then there was a different contractor that came in. Subsequently, they're on this and we did the inspection. Okay, so there was work being done electrical there. There was work being done and I

have a bit of a question on this because I'm a little confused. In your price, you say that you're doing electrical work, but the people that were doing the work wasn't your employee. How did you how did you think you were gonna accomplish this work when you priced it if they weren't your employee, but yet there was somebody else doing the work, but not your employee?

Yeah. What I was referring to, the part that I did not do is, like, extending lines. So there was a subpanel that was added in in this project. And my guys did not extend those lines to the subpanel. The electrical work that my guys did was, again, there was a wall in the picture that we cut down that went from being a floor to ceiling wall to just the island wall. So the outlets that were there essentially in the backsplash got moved down to now a 34 and a half high wall. Okay.

So don't mean to interrupt. They got relocated?

Yeah. Yes. On on my end there, yes.

That's requires a permit. Understood.

I got a question. The homeowner hired all our individuals to work while you were doing your own job?

That's correct. In the sense of, like I said, where to achieve this remodel, their existing breaker, there was not enough breaker circuits to achieve their all their appliances and stuff like that. So a subpanel was needed to be added for essentially to achieve

So that subpanel was added by The homeowner. The homeowner. Himself or someone he hired?

I I couldn't tell you who who did that work there.

What did

he tell to me that the homeowner should be present too.

I do have another question for

May I ask a quick question just following up on that? What did he tell you about the person who was coming out to do the electrical work?

At first is he said he had he knows of he has a friend that works with that stuff that could connect the pain.

Were you aware of that friend before you gave this price because you've listed that you were gonna do this work, this electrical work?

No. I was not aware. Okay.

I do have another question. Your next estimate shows handwritten here, and it shows you added four lights to install for six So you you additionally did more knowing you needed you were requested to do more.

Right. So

and you went forward with to do more.

Yeah. So like I said, back at the time when this was done, on my part, you know, I did not fully understand all the codes and experience and stuff like that to know like, hey, what am I allowed and not allowed to do? And again, I acknowledge that part.

As a follow-up question, did you run the electrical for those lights, or did you just install the fixtures? You didn't run the electrical?

Right.

I I What style fixture was it?

I don't know exactly what light he's referring to there. I'm assuming it is either Something

one eighty three, Darren, is what I'm looking at.

The only lights that I can recall from this project would be, if any, was any pendant lights over the island or, as you can see, those two lights inside the inside the glass door cabinets in the back there. So it'd be we're talking a can light similar to the ones here in the ceiling.

Those sorry for interrupting you. Those lights inside the cabinets, I spoke to the property owner. Those are just basically push up and you push up and they light and come on. That that wasn't part of it. But the issue was

I do got to assume that, I mean, on a remodel, you're changing things. Right? Mhmm. And you're moving things around. Nowhere on the finish was this island placed. I got to assume maybe it wasn't there, maybe it was there. So those lights never fell exactly in proportion of where they need to be upon your completion of work. Therefore, things had to be moved and shifted and rewired, I

would assume.

Electrician thirty five years, I mean, I would think that would be the case. Right. Yeah.

Not only that, we know that the microwave has to be a designated 100%. Circuit. One twenty amp, yes. 14, I mean 12. 12.

And the pictures, do see a lot of white, just in reference to electrical. Quite a few years ago, they changed the color coding, which you might know about, 12 gauge is yellow in color, 14 gauge is white in color. They certainly did this long before 2021. I see a lot of 14 on the ground in the kitchen. Usually, that's just lighting, never in the walls. So something listening to Darren, how they remove stuff, it kind of appears from what I'm seeing that he's correct.

Even on this image here, underneath where the gentleman is standing, there's a light there. That light is not in the finished photos. This has been removed, if I see correctly, because the cabinets are there. Yeah.

Yep. Yeah.

It's all different.

You're not aware of who removed that light.

Of course not. I'm I'm going on the evidence I was giving.

No. I understand. It's just I think we have a problem the homeowner was out there hiring an unlicensed friend electrical contractor who was doing work, and you're trying to hold my client responsible for it.

And I understand that Ma'am, based on just the contract, that's all we need. Is the contract saying he's doing electrical work?

I understand.

That's it. He's in violation.

But I think there's other issues here, which because of the amount of time, the amount of other issues he's admitting to you that he used improper wording, then that's fine. He's not we've all met a contractor with no disrespect. I I do construction all day long. Some of my contractors are brilliant people like yourself, and some of them are not so good at the language part of how they write things. And I understand, but we have another electrical contractor out

there who's running a line, running Been doing this long enough to know that all handyman or whatever you wanna call people unlicensed do 10 times more than what they should be doing. And that's why we have a board.

Understood.

And in my opinion, he should be getting three $1,000 fines. One for plumbing, one for electric, and one for not being a GC. So this is kind of yeah. This is not enough in my opinion.

I have another question. Yeah. Sorry. If the electrical went wrong, burnt down the house, who would the insurance companies be interested in talking to?

As somebody who used to work for the insurance companies, I will tell you that you sue every single person in the line down to the person who made the electrical wiring.

Okay. And especially the one that wrote the contract and put these words down because that's the only evidence

you I would probably also sue the homeowner for the unlicensed contracting. I would go after his friend who, you know, he's never going to give up. Let's be real. Okay.

So but on basically, they would have

But that's Richard's name. But that's because you have a thing called a Fabry defendant. So you have to put every single person who could potentially be even point 01% liable on the verdict form because a jury it's respectfully I mean, I've done defense. I've done prosecution. You stand there. I can get a jury to believe that you might be 1% liable even if I just have you in the house looking and maybe saying that wiring doesn't look right. It should be a little different. So it's very easy. So you kinda put everybody on the verdict form. Right. So you have to sue everybody or else somebody like this sues me for malpractice. So you put everybody. It doesn't necessarily mean everybody's liable. No. But you do put everybody.

But again, the paperwork says

he did it. Right. The question here isn't that he did all the electrical. The question is he admitted to doing at least electrical, and that is a violation. So it doesn't matter if he did it all or just one.

I understand.

He still should have had a he did it without being licensed.

I understand. I just think that we have a lot of overlap in what was happening electrical wise at that property.

Very possibly.

And that is a problem and with no disrespect to this board, this board should probably also be citing the homeowner.

Well, I'm sorry for interrupting you. We brought a case to the homeowner. He he he had violations on his property. He's had to address all of these violations. So we we when we open a case, we don't just open it against the the contractor. We also we open two cases, one for the property owner, one for the contractor. So he's had a case. He's gone in, and he's had to redo his electric. He's had to get all the permits properly, and we're monitoring his case. And at the moment, his case is a issue status at the moment. Okay? But you're on the other half of that case. Mhmm. Yeah.

Well, and and I will tell you that he's seeking the full amount of all of that electrical code compliance work from my client, including, I think, running

a

trench and electrical wiring to a shed with an AC unit out in the yard. I mean, he's done some significant electrical work and he's just trying to throw it at everybody, including Orbek.

With all due respect, I mean to keep it to what we actually have oversight on, that's a civil matter.

No, I understand.

I'm just saying like it unfortunately has nothing to do with the decision that we can make because all we have to look at is whether or not the violation that the investigator puts forth is accurate or not. That's I understand your point and that there's other things that trickle down from that. But ultimately that is nothing that becomes relevant to the decision as to whether or not your client was proposing something and acting out something that is in violation of the ordinance. So I think that's again keeping it to kind of what we can.

Can I just say one thing in relation to the in regards to the plumbing, right? We did see on the plumbing, but we kind of have to have proof. Yeah? And I couldn't see anywhere that I could notice that it was for even though,

as you said, there's It's written in the contract.

To do plumbing. Yes.

So he's acting in the capacity Yeah. Of a plumbing contract Mhmm. Because it's on this contract. There should be no mention of electric or plumbing. And like you said, if you want it all on the up and up, you just take care of the cabinets, The owner takes care of the electric and the plumbing and keep that separate. Let them hire the license. Then you're okay. But when you choose to act in the capacity of a contractor, which you did by writing all this out. That's that's the violation right there.

Yeah. So again, and to in respect to the reason why we're here today, asked for the hearing in the sense of if I thought I had to justify the electrical, just wanted to mention, hey, there was other people involved in electrical. The purpose of me asking for the hearing is to justify it not against not paying the citation in front of me.

Yeah, and I think we understand that. We appreciate that because I think it's all part of, as your attorney is kind of alluding to, there's a bigger picture going on there. And I just wanted to clarify for you all that we only have the small little snippet of the So is there any other comments, questions? No. Okay. Again, anybody on the Board wishes to read and make your decision and your motion? I am not able.

Mr. Chairman, based on the testimony heard today and the evidence produced by the parties of this case, I move to submit the following motion to establish findings of fact. On the date of 11/14/2025, citation 32320 was issued by City of Port St. Lucie licensing investigator Darren Zobrian. A copy of the citation was properly served. The allegations of fact as set forth in the citation with any attachments thereto are true and adopted and incorporated herein by this reference.

Do we have a second?

I second.

All in favor of accepting the findings of fact?

Aye. Sorry.

Oh, I was wanting to know if you wanted to call for any discussion before making the motion.

Any further discussion on the findings of

fact? No.

Seeing none.

All right.

I move that the Construction Board of Appeals based on the findings of fact concludes that the respondent did violate City Of Port St. Lucie City's ordinance one five zero dot five three zero a eight and Florida statute four eight nine dot five three one one a. And I move to order the following action. Place a civil penalty of $1,000

Is there a second? I second that. Any further discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? No. Again, Mr. Rodriguez, thank you for taking the time. We obviously you noted that you were in the process of working towards GC.

I know I'll default to what has been said in years past on this board. Sometimes these are just hiccups and hurdles along the way where you learn the hard way something that seems minor and maybe it's the wording of something like you said with the contract, but we don't want that to shy you away from doing work here. We actually want people to do things the right way and to proceed. And believe me, there's a lot of people that come to this board that have been doing work licensed for a number of years and have far more severe things that they're doing. So we appreciate your honesty and that you're coming forward and making that effort to really do hopefully good work in the future here in the city.

I mean, that's what I have to say. I don't know if anybody else has anything to add to that.

Great. Thank you

for coming forward.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Obviously use the building department, always check with them as frequent as you can. Proceeding on the agenda to Item 12, certification of fine hearings. These are the ones I believe we have to read out one at a time. Correct?

Yeah. I can read them if you'd like, then you can make your motions afterwards.

Okay.

You can go one by one.

That would be great.

12 a, certification of fine order to lien. Adam Gibbs, Adam Gibbs Construction LLC, Citation number 32271, remaining balance owed $2,000

I make a motion to certify.

I second it.

In favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? No. 12b.

Certification of fine order to lien, Adam Gibbs, Adam Gibbs Construction LLC, citation number 32273, remaining balance owed $2,000

Motion. I make a motion to certify.

Second.

I can't second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Nope. 12C.

Certification of fine order to lien, Adam Gibbs, Adam Gibbs Construction LLC. Citation number 32274. Remaining balance owed, $1,000.

I make a motion to certify.

I second it.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Opposed? Alright.

12 d.

Certification of fine order to lien, Jeremy Daga, American Roofing and Gutters LLC, citation number 32249, remaining balance owed $1,000

I make a motion to certify that one too.

Second. All in favor? Aye. 12 b.

Certification of fine order to lien, Jennifer J. Hickman, Drip or Drop Plumbing LLC, citation number 32304, remaining balance owed $1,000

I make a motion to certify that one. Second. Second.

In favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Item 13, disciplinary hearings, nothing there. 14, public to be heard. Seeing none.