Code Enforcement - Regular Meeting

September 10th, 2026, special magistrate meeting.

I'm going to call the special magistrate hearing to order on September 10th, 2026 at 10.05. If we can all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you.

And if we can have anyone that will provide testimony today, so both the staff as well as the respondent, you guys could rise.

Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Yes, I do. State your name for the record.

Jack Risinger, political official.

Jeremy LeBastard.

Thank you. And is there any public comment on non-agenda items? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and call the first violation hearing. This is case number E26-0017, MetaList Building Group, LLC, for Timor Street. Alleged violations of section 22-2 F1E, property maintenance standards, and section 52-25B, construction site runoff control. Town?

Good morning. This case involves an actual lot that was once three to more in Sewells Point. And what happened is back on the March of this year, a demolition permit was issued to remove the – there was, I guess, two structures on that property. The property was as one. Once the house was demolished, removed, the property in the meantime, I don't know the sequence of it, but it was divided into two parcels after that or reverted back to two parcels. I'm not too sure about that. But either way, it was broken down into two now, which the addresses are now four and six to more. Since the demolition, which removed the structure, including the pool, happened back around April of this year, it's been left kind of like a war zone because everything was in disarray. The grass was growing really tall, weeds, and there was a large hole in the ground left where the pool was and a lot of just dirt blowing in the wind. We then contacted the owner and asked them to cover the property. We would talk that a permit was coming within a reasonable amount of time to build a new house or houses. So we just kind of relaxed on that and waited for that, but that never materialized. So we then said, well, because of the complaints of the flowing sand and everything, we then went and notified the owner that you have to do something about this construction site that is not kept. So soon after that, the grass was then cut but still left the ground not covered, the sand and the silt. So it was still subject to the wind and the rain blowing in the other yards and also into the river or into the road. Since that time, several notices have gone out asking for the compliance, and we've really didn't get any compliance until actually yesterday is the first time that effort was made where they actually went out and put some dirt into the pool area where the hole was, filled that, and kind of graded it a little bit better, and then put down sod on both of the parcels except one parcel, parcel being number two to Moore. still has some area that is not covered with any grass or seed or hay or anything like that. It's still just dirt. Two questions. So when was the first formal notice provided? The first formal notice was actually, I think it was I have a letter that went out on August 10th, but I believe There were emails prior to that.

Right, but around, so in August.

Yeah, official notice went out on August 10th of 2026.

And then you just mentioned two Timor Street. No, four. So if I said two, it was by mistake. Okay, so you've got four and six are here today. Four and six, ones we're talking about, which actually was three. Right. And so four has been sodded and six hasn't?

They both have been sodded. but number four is still not complete, not just with the sod, but there was some debris still to the west of that lot, which is one of the photos. Yeah, one of the photos from this morning. Yeah, the chair and cushion. And when I went out there this morning, that chair and cushion are still remaining, and there's an area near where the pool was on four, two more, that is still not covered with grass, seed, or hay yet. in which it would be subject to wind or rain erosion.

So I'm looking at, I'm sorry, anything further? No. Okay, so I'm looking at section 22-2. Would these be considered developed property or undeveloped?

It was developed and we have a caveat in the ordinance that says once it's a developed property, you'll have to always maintain it as a developed property, meaning the grass can never go back to the wild.

And so we're looking at, if we look at section 22-2, are we now focused on F1 and subparts A, which is shall be kept free of debris, rubbish, trash, or litter, and then E. And what we're looking for is a compliance date of 30 days, and if not, $100 per day.

And we'd like to also recover our administrative fees. And how much are those? It's going to be $40 for the document preparations and postage, $30 for the visits, $100 for the office staff costs, $400 for the special magistrate, and $260 for our attorney.

Let's see if we can compare numbers. I've got 830. Yes, 830. So other question for you. Part of the citation is for section 52-25, construction site control. Are we not looking to necessarily enforce that? Or is this deemed a construction site right now?

It's still an open permit, by the way. The permit does expire in a couple of weeks. It expires, I think, on 10.

But there's an active permit.

Yes, for the demolition of the structure that's . OK, so we've got A and B. OK. Yeah, it expires on 10-10 of 26. OK. OK.

Thank you. Mr. LeMaster?

Do you want me to submit any additional photos?

It's up to whatever you deem appropriate.

Well, can I show you videos or can I show you photos? Do you have any issue or objection? Because it's hard to see with just Jack's thing. So let's show the Jack channel so you can see. So this was yesterday. Okay, so this is coming down the road.

Okay.

Do you agree with that? Back there, you see the white spots?

Yeah. Okay. That wasn't counting those.

Yeah. So this entire place, that video just is a lot easier. That's why I had to take thousands of pictures.

Do you think you can have those periods

That's it.

10 days good for that?

We can do it right away because they asked me last night. But hold on, let me show you one last thing. Hold on. Okay, so this is from the other way. Okay. Still Fort Timor? Well, the address is some. So this is what I have a problem with. Okay, so I get cited. for runoffs. Okay, and you can clearly see it goes in the drain from this guy's property. No citations on him. Okay, I'm not blaming you Jack, I'm just saying. Because I'm sure that he's the one that called. Regardless, so you go up, everything else is clean. Okay, there's his bare spots over there and then over here is where you don't fiddle for that. The point I was trying to make was when I start, let me go to, oh, I want you to see this. Are we still on four? So the addresses are messed up because property appraiser has one thing, Jack has another, just so we're very clear. They don't match. And I'm being serious. three timber. So when I go to start a project, this is on March 30th before we started it. That's what that drain looks like. Okay. That's what's in the drains. They've never been cleaned. Okay. So this is in the drain next to the guys. Okay. And this is on March 30th. Okay. So this, When I start a Sewell's Point job, and specifically Sewell's Point job, I take a video of what the property looks like prior because I'll get blamed for everything. Okay, so you can see he still has all the bare stuff and everything. Okay, so there's all his bare spots all over the place. Okay, so now I go to demo, demo, demo, demo. Okay, so then on June 3rd, okay, this is our property right here. Okay, underneath this right here is a drainage ditch. that Jack is referring to. That drainage ditch, Sunshine put the felt paper, and Jack saw the picture of it, they put the felt underneath it to stop any construction debris or anything going through. So they talked about pooling and all that other stuff I heard from other people

just so we're clear. So that's them cutting.

That was yesterday. So that's the felt that goes underneath it. So this drain is not clogged from us because we already had the dirt. And then like Jack was saying, they put the felt underneath the grate, the filter material to let water go through, I totally agree, is when they go to pull the grate, all the stuff falls down. There's no way to stop it. It's a dumb thing to do, honestly. They should have put hay around it. But, so, that was what your guys' drains looked like. So these were the roles that we brought. We had to hire someone, but this wasn't just like Jeremy coming to do SOP, just so you know. It was a SOP company and a grading company that did both. Just so we're clear, because I'm not in the slot business. So then there was all the fill and all that other kind of stuff. But again, that's the grate. I blew it off so you could see it better. And then what I thought was interesting is this is your drainage grate next to the water right down the street from me. That's what a drainage grate is supposed to look like.

clean. So the drainage grates on timber, I guarantee if you pulled records, haven't been done for over a year. Guaranteed.

To have that much silt and fence and everything in it.

Mr. Ohlmeister, can you email those documents just as a record?

Of course. You want me to do video? Can I video it?

Whatever you would like. All the pictures and videos.

You don't think it would be too big?

You could put them on a flash drive and deliver them.

That's what we'll do?

Yeah.

Let's see if we can do the work. We need them for the record. Okay. Just so you got it.

And then they'll be part of the record.

Anything else?

No, that's pretty much it.

Okay. So based on the evidence and testimony that has been presented, I will find that there is a violation of section 22-2, F1, A and E, and 52-25. We're going to give the respondent 30 days to come into compliance, failing which there will be $100 a day fine. And I am assessing an administrative fee of $830, which will be due and payable immediately. Any issue with coming to compliance within that 30-day period? No, the only thing I would ask is... Can you come to the microphone just to make sure?

The only thing I would ask is, we did receive a final inspection, so is there a reason the permit was open? Or does it help?

That's what it is. The only inspection that I had done on the property was the electric and sewer. There was no, I checked it this morning, there's no results in for a final inspection.

That's not an issue.

Yeah, I just want to clarify, that's not an issue for this. This issue is filling in those blank spots of sod and then making sure whatever construction debris and stuff, the runoff's not there. Yeah, so the permit's not an issue today.

Okay, I didn't know if it mattered.

No, no, yeah. Okay. So with that, that'll be my order for case number B26-0017 as it relates to, according to the town's record, for Timor Street.

Just to be clear, technically it's the left lot that's in violation, not the right. Yes.

And I don't know what you want to call that. Well, again, just based on the town's records, we'll call it for, but... confirmed by the town it is the left the right lots in compliance the left lot is not because of the chair and the missing grass am i correct yes and those are the two items that you need me to fix yeah so i think that is an important thing just so everyone leaves here with complete clarity as to what's not in compliance for mr lemasters to fix it's filling in those it's sodding those blank spots, and then removing the debris. And just the chair and a cushion.

That's it. OK. So there you go.

So you've got 30 days to do it. And the beams that are covered.

So we just forgot that. That's one reason why we didn't poll it yesterday, just so you know.

Understood. So with that, we will call the next item, next pigeon item, which is beat.

So next item is item 1B, case number B26-0018, Medalist Building Group LLC, 6 Timor Street, alleged violations of section 22-2F1E.

property maintenance standards and section 52-25B construction site runoff control. Jack, it's all yours.

Again, good morning. Jack Risinger, Building Official, Thomas Hills Point. Just a little moment of clarity here. The lot, this is lot 6, Timor. The previous case was lot 4, Timor, which is a budding 2 to Moore. So that whole side of the road goes 2, 4, 6. And then it ends at that cul-de-sac. There's no other property next to that. On the opposite side of the street, it goes into the odd numbers. So this is the even number side of the street. So this case on 6 to Moore is identical to the previous case with the clearing of the lot, which held a structure. The lot was then cleared of the the structures and left bare. The sod was then replaced again yesterday and it was also a debris pile that was a bunch of tree branches and whatnot that was also removed. So this entire lot number six is in compliance as of yesterday but I'm looking for a review and determination based on the amount of time it took just to put down some sod.

So it's currently in compliance? Yes, it is. Are you looking for administrative fees for this matter?

Yes, I am. Same fees identical to the previous case, which would come out to $830. Did you want me to break it down? No.

I got it from the last one. Same breakdown as the last one?

Yes. Anything else? No.

Mr. LeMaster, anything? Well, obviously, if we finished it prior to this, they gave us 29 days to fix it from written notice. And I think if we're paying the $880 for the left plot, which technically, to be very clear, was under one demo permit when we pulled, I think it's fair just to have paid what we're not in compliance with, as opposed to doing double because it's not like we did double trips. We looked at the same thing over and over. Any response to that? We're in compliance and I don't know what the Florida statute says but I can tell you that 29 days from the date of notice I think is a reasonable amount of time considering you're giving me 30 to fix just the small stuff. I think is reasonable. And there's no more administrative fees and inspections by Jack and all the other stuff. I mean, I just don't think it's right to be hit double. And like I showed you guys the video, some of the stuff is very, very questionable of what's even written in the report. And I really don't want to have to fight that.

Any response from staff?

I guess to Ms. Ellimaster's point, understanding that you're absolutely right for this hearing purposes, it's a

It's a separate parcel, separate violation.

I am a little concerned from an administrative point of view. They would have been administratively processed one and the same, meaning that the time it took to address lot four would have been similar and the same for at least for some of the expenses, meaning that... Some of the postage and some of those hard costs certainly may have been there. I just wonder if some of the soft costs were absorbed concurrently.

Well, so the breakdown is the $40 for preparation and postage, site visits for the violation was only $30, and office staff costs $100, and that is involved with all the communications regarding. So we would be willing to agree to maybe half cost on each of those. We're still here for both cases, and so the rest of those costs are hard costs.

You're going to force me to do math again.

I know.

Hey, Tyson? Yeah. Is there a reason why I would be paying the attorney twice?

Yes, for that it's the time expended and so part of it, so there is an obligation when you're forced to come to a hearing because of a compliance date that you are one responsible for.

But we are, just to be clear, we are in compliance.

Again, so we've got two things here. So one is if you If you come into compliance at a point where the notice is already provided and you're already having the hearing that's already set, then what we typically do, and just to be in complete candor, what I'm inclined to do now is find that there was a violation, but that you're in compliance today so there's no coming to compliance date and no daily fine. but because of the administrative process that the town has to pay my fee, the town has to pay the attorney's fees, the notices went out, and some of those costs that, because we're here today, that they're forced to incur, state statute does say those are appropriate to assign to us. So what I'm trying to do is appreciate, because I think there is some validity in your argument.

Can I just say one thing? Certainly. So the problem that I have is we're talking about the original demo permit, which was for the whole parcel. It was for the whole parcel. For us to be able to do and to get the PCN number, we had to have the structure demoed. But this stems from the original demo permit. And then in the meanwhile, we had to file with the clerk of courts, or actually through the property president, to then separate it. So in my opinion, we're getting whacked because we separated it. And I understand your guys' standpoint, but it stemmed from the original one demo permit for the entire whole parcel.

100% appreciate that, but so my role is sort of limited, so I'm outside that permit. So, you know, and the dilemma here is because they are two separate, and again, this isn't applicable necessarily here. And this isn't normal. I know that. Yeah, but the process here is they are two independent pieces of property now, so they have to be treated differently. even though they're common and related in what you're doing, they have to be treated as if they're separate parcels, which is why we're having two separate hearings, even though the allegations are the same. I totally understand, but getting whacked double, I think, is... Unfortunately, I think that might be just the nature of the beast here. So with that... So I am going to find that there was a violation of section 22-2 and section 52-25. However, as of today, those properties are in compliance. Should they come back out of compliance, it would be treated as a repeat violation. And I am going to assess administrative fees of $500 for this matter. And that is the last item on the agenda. So with that, I will close this hearing.