Built from the City's minutes records — no AI-written textBriefing final
The City's record
What the City's record shows
Built only from the City's minutes (684_CE_Reg_Minutes_08_17_2023.pdf). Page numbers are the minutes' own. Discussion is in the minutes' text; it is not summarised here.
Attendance (the roll call)
Listed present when the roll was taken: Lloyd Roberts, George Brown, Chris Davis, Michael Simpson, Verna Hughes, David Lightholder, Aurora Ramirez, Josue Otero
(Checked against the ballots and the printed roll lines; no independent membership list of this board is available to confirm that the roll is complete.)
Listed absent: Sharri Scott
Also listed as present (staff and other roles): Dennis Bunt (Code Enforcement Manager), Augusto Gonzalez-Ruiz (Code Enforcement Officer), Vince Buonocore (Code Enforcement Officer), Kristin Eick (City Attorney), Darla Crowl (Recording Secretary)
Adopted actions (12)
to approve to the agenda of August 17, 2023 (moved by Davis, seconded by Hughes); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 2
to approve to the minutes of July 20, 2023 (moved by Hughes, seconded by Davis); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 2
to amend Staffs recommendation for the business tax receipt amount to a onetime fine of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) (moved by Hughes, seconded by Davis); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 2
to approve Staffs recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Davis, seconded by Hughes); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 2
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Davis, seconded by Simpson); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 3
to approve Staffs recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Davis, seconded by Simpson); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 4
to approve Staffs recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Brown, seconded by Davis); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 4
to approve Staffs recommendation and a fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00) per day and find the Property Owner in repeat violation (moved by Davis, seconded by Lightholder); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 5
to amend Staff's recommendation and table until September 17, 2023 thirty days (30 days) with a timeline and find the Owner in noncompliance (moved by Lightholder, seconded by Brown); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 5
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Owner in Non-Compliance (moved by Simpson, seconded by Davis); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 6
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Owner in Non-Compliance (moved by Davis, seconded by Simpson); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 6
to approve Staffs recommendation and find the Owner in Non-Compliance (moved by Davis, seconded by Otero); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 7
Money named in the minutes' motions (what each motion did with the amount, in its own words)
$250.00 — Code Enforcement: decided in an adopted motion. “amend Staffs recommendation for the business tax receipt amount to a onetime fine of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00)” (motion result: CARRIED; the City's minutes (684_CE_Reg_Minutes_08_17_2023.pdf, p. 2); fiscal period not recorded)
$500.00 — Code Enforcement: decided in an adopted motion. “approve Staffs recommendation and a fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00) per day and find the Property Owner in repeat violation” (motion result: CARRIED; the City's minutes (684_CE_Reg_Minutes_08_17_2023.pdf, p. 5); fiscal period not recorded)
Agenda (the City's wording)
The City's agenda for this meeting is on file (CE_Reg_Agenda_08_17_2023), but its item list has not been read reliably by machine yet, so no outline is shown.
Transcript Partial transcript
Machine transcription of the meeting recording. The words are the recognizer's, except where a passage is marked as corrected or machine re-recognized; most have
not been checked against the audio, so words, numbers and names can be misheard.
It describes what was said. It cannot establish who voted how, an amount or an outcome — the City's
minutes do that (above).
A time links to its passage, and “Copy link” copies that link. No recording can be started from here.
374 suspect passage(s) marked in place; inspection incomplete: language review; 1 stretch(es) where a voice was detected and no words were recognized.
How this transcript was made. New machine transcription of the whole recording, with 16 voices separated from the audio.
38 short machine repair(s) (42 word(s)) are labelled in place, with the original words beside them: an ordinary word was replaced only where two further machine readings agreed on a different one.
Checks run on this transcript: the recognizer's own warning signs and whether a voice was detected where the words are. Not completed: language review.
A second, independent machine reading was compared with it word by word: the same words for 91.1% of 15,590 content words.
Dotted words (327 places) are ordinary wording differences: hover or tap to see the other reading.
374 passages (23% of the words) are marked suspect: their words are not shown ("unclear audio") and support no statement: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ; the language review questioned them; or no voice was detected there.
Agreement between two machine readings is not verification.
Inspection is incomplete: language review.
Voice detected, no words recognized (1 stretch). Something may have been said here that the transcript does not have:
00:58:17 (7 s) — neither reading has words
Speakers were separated by voice. A plain name rests on evidence tied to that voice; “provisional” is a name from an earlier text-only pass and is not verified; “Speaker N” is an unidentified voice.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:01:06–00:01:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:01:13–00:01:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And as far as the agenda for tonight, there are going to be some amendments here. On the regular case side, item number three has complied. Item number four has complied. Item number five
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:01:19–00:01:33 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:01:33–00:01:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:01:43–00:01:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:02:13–00:02:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:30–00:02:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:34–00:02:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:37–00:02:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:54–00:02:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:59–00:02:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:59–00:03:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:03:04–00:03:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:03:29–00:03:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:03:32–00:03:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I am submitting a packet of documents and photos associated with this case. The photos accurately show the property during my visits and my findings of
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:03:51–00:03:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:04:00–00:04:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording; words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 00:04:12–00:04:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:04:12–00:04:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:04:14–00:04:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Chapter 12, Section 12-18 and B for the electronics business that's being operated by the, excuse me, for the electronics business that the renter is operating out of the residence. I'm sorry for the the business tax receipt for the rental property, which has been abated on 6-28-2023. Rental business tax receipt.
I found the property in violation of the above mentioned sections of the city code. I have attempted to gain voluntary compliance in this case, but as of my last inspection on 8-17-2023, the property remains in violation. I have been working
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:05:30–00:05:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
contact with the property manager and property owner. I brought this case before the code enforcement board, as I have been working this case for 170 days and the violations have not been fully resolved. I sent the
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:05:48–00:05:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:05:54–00:05:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the violations remain until compliance is achieved. The property manager sent me an email which I placed on at your seats, requesting a 60 day extension to resolve the code violations.
I appreciate you ‸ providing us with this statement from the licensed real estate broker representing the owner here. Do you have any opposition to the 60 days that they're asking for?
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:07:59–00:08:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
law, uh, that came up is we're actually placing fines for each violation that is on the agenda. So we're no longer giving one number for the entire case. We're breaking it down into each violation. So when he read those numbers in the 25, 25, and 10, that's what we're asking be imposed for each one of these violations that are on the agenda.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:08:37–00:08:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
now, uh, just to be clear. So we have $25 a day for the store and outdoors, $25 a day for storing vehicles, and $10 a day for business tax receipt. Correct?
I do want to address the business tax receipt, because actually, uh, there are attorney general opinions that provide that we cannot impose a daily fine for a business tax receipt, uh, failure to obtain one. Um, it's a single fine that can be imposed, which is a maximum of $250. So that's not something that can have a recurring daily fine.
Correct. Correct. That would be, um, and this is, I'm reading from the statute that, um, if you fail to pay the required business tax within 150 days after the initial notice of tax due, at that point, um, we are able to impose the penalty, a single penalty of up to $250.
The business tax receipt should have been obtained the moment that they moved in and opened up the business. So, yes, they've exceeded the 150 days, um, even based on the length of our case.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:11:04–00:11:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:11:19–00:11:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:30–00:11:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:11:49–00:11:49 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:11:52–00:11:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Those opposed? The motion passes unanimously on that. So we have $250 a day for business tax receipt. Now we can deal with the days. You have a recommendation on...
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:12:14–00:12:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
storing vehicles outdoors, um, and storing outdoors and impose a fine of $50 per day, um, provide a 60-day period for remedy, um, until compliance is achieved. Sorry.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:13:00–00:13:00 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:09–00:13:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
where, um, there were, I don't want to get into a lot of the details, but there were arguments made about, um, um, the propriety of having a single fine with multiple violations. And so what we're recommending is that for each violation, you set the individual fine. So the motion would not be 50. It would be 25 for each.
Got it. Okay. So I'm, I'm going to amend my motion to $25 per day for storing vehicles and $25 per day for storing outdoors. Um, ‸ again, I'm going to stick with a 60 day period for remedy. Um, until compliance is achieved.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:14:20–00:14:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And Mr. Chair, starting next month on the agenda, staff's recommendation will read as he read in his presentation breaking each violation into what we're asking for. Yes, sir. These agendas were just already made before we did everything. So next month the recommendation will read the same on the agenda that you can follow.
The address is 1211 Merle Lane. I am submitting the packet of documents and photos associated with this case. The photos accurately show the property during my visits and my findings of storage of recreational vehicle,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:15:53–00:15:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
property in violation of the above-mentioned sections of the city code. I have attempted to gain voluntary compliance in this case, but as of my last inspection on 8-17-2023, the property remains in violation. I have been working on this case since 3-30 of 2023 and have made attempts to contact the property ‸ owner. I brought this case before the Code Enforcement Board as I have been working this case for 140 days and the violations have not been fully resolved. I have sent notice of hearing on 7-28-2023 and it was certified and posted on the property in violation. Staff finds in case
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:17:06–00:17:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:14–00:17:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:17–00:17:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:22–00:17:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:29–00:17:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:35–00:17:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:18:07–00:18:08 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:18:14–00:18:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:18:22–00:18:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
All right. We've been in the house for 11 years. It's the reason they've not been able to get a hold of the person who owns the house. He's a friend of ours. He's in the Army. He's on a little tiny island
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:18:46–00:18:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
There's eight feet of clearance on the side of the house. No boats going in there. So he said we could put on the other side. If we put on the other side of the house,
So I don't understand why all of a sudden the boat's been there six years. Why all of a sudden is it a problem? If it's in the driveway, our driveway is 56 feet long.
still have six feet behind it. My husband's trailer and truck fit there. We still have nine feet of property on the concrete before we even hit the road. We're still trying to figure out what the problem is. Trailer's been there 11 years. Both been there six.
Well, now, I can understand ‸ what you're saying because if you've been doing something wrong 11 years, it's like, why am I having to do it, change it now? But the bottom line is when you were notified, that's one of the things that you guys should be working toward to figure out what the solution is because, okay, ‸ if ‸ the statute says it's wrong, it's wrong, Whether it was 11 years or this year or five years ago. And the thing about it is just, we don't want to bring you here if you're complying and trying to get things done. But what happens is when people don't comply, they are not meeting those things, then we end up here. So I can't tell you what's right or what's wrong as far as what you're trying to do, but it hasn't worked so far.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:13–00:21:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
We have never had anything put in our yard, nothing's ever been sent, nothing about anything until tomorrow will be three weeks ago. So how do we know that we're in a violation if nothing's ever sent?
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:21:38–00:21:38 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
not sent. They're referring to the posting and the notice of hearing that we posted on the property, which is what they saw. As far as the boat goes, the ordinance is clear. In order to be in a concrete surface like a driveway, it can be no larger than 22 feet. If it's larger than 22 feet, it has to be on the side or rear of the property. And then storing outdoors, you can't have ladders and equipment surrounding your business and other items stored outdoors. It's that simple. But part of the issue here is that we have a property owner and then we have tenants. So we don't know who's occupying the house when we go by. So we send everything according to the statute to what's on the property appraiser. So if they did not receive the letters, that's because they're not technically the property owner.
We've had the roof done for him. Everything else has been done. But if you're going to change bylaws or something, shouldn't, if ‸ you're trying to beautify Coco, I understand, but shouldn't something at least go out to, you have no problem sending out little pamphlets and everything for Coco, shouldn't something be sent out to, it doesn't have to be addressed to the homeowner, to the occupant of the house notifying
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:23:19–00:23:20 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Normally, how it goes here is we ask you how long it's going to take for you to remedy all of these things. So he's outlined what the violations are and it's very clear to this board that you understand what the violations are.
Okay. ‸ Let's say everything else has been done. We've taken down the fence so he can put the trailer to the side of the house. That's the only thing that'll fit back there.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:24:46–00:24:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:25:34–00:25:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:25:37–00:25:38 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
so, so, so, so, and it looks like, ‸ I mean, I can see a change in the difference in the pictures from before until today. So, I mean, like, it's, it's, we still, um, standing on outdoor storage and everything that's still in appliance or has anything changed from the,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:25:59–00:26:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:10–00:26:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:26:25–00:26:25 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:26:26–00:26:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Okay. So, question. Um, so how do we come up with the business tax receipt? Not the rental, but the business tax receipt. That should go along with the rental, correct? And that's why No,
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:26:55–00:26:56 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
doesn't own, ‸ he has, in order to go and install cabinets, he has to go through sun org, blah, blah, blah, get a LLC so he can install cabinets. He has to carry a million dollars worth of insurance.
Second floor, just above us in community services. You can just go in there, it's a painless process, So you fill out the application, give it to them, they'll approve you, and you'll get a business tax receipt that's renewable every year.
All right. The rental, it's friends of ours, we've been living in the house. We barely pay him anything because we work on the house, So he still has to have a rental license in order for us to stay in his house?
Correct. Under the code, if there's people occupying your home, we have a rental code that says it becomes a rental and we require a business tax receipt for that. So it's a
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:28:26–00:28:27 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
They would probably have to send him the application and have it get signed and then he would have to probably send it back. ‸ I'm not clear on what they'll accept. They would have to talk to them.
They said that they have access to him via email, so I'm hoping that they can share that with Officer Bonacore so that there can be some correspondence back and forth so we can get this resolved within that 38 period.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:29:12–00:29:12 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:29:17–00:29:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:29:21–00:29:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:29:28–00:29:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:29:35–00:29:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:43–00:29:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:46–00:29:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I'm submitting a packet of documents and photos associated with this case. ‸ Photos accurately depict the property during my visits and show my findings of accessory structures section 6-1001G for the disrepair of the fence, weather staining, and degradation from moisture,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:03–00:30:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:05–00:30:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:15–00:30:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:21–00:30:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:30:23–00:30:24 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Parking in the yard for the parking of vehicles in the yard. I visited the site eight times. During my first inspection, I found the property in violation of the above mentioned sections of the city code.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:30:34–00:30:34 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:30:36–00:30:36 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
my last inspection this morning on August 17, 2023. The property remains in violation. I've been working this case since January 9, 2023, and I have not had contact with the property owner after several attempts. I brought this case for the code enforcement board.
staff finds in case 22-732 that the owner is in violation and recommended these be given to come into compliance, or a fine of $25 for accessory structures,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:16–00:31:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
$50 for exterior general condition, and $25 for parking in the yard be imposed for each of the violations remain until compliance is achieved. The property owner is not present.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:31:37–00:31:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:31:47–00:31:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:32:01–00:32:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:32:04–00:32:05 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
for violations of accessory structures and a fine of $25 per day, a violation of accumulation of trash and litter and a fine ‸ of $25 per day, a violation of exterior general condition, a fine of $50 per day,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:32:38–00:32:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:32:42–00:32:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:55–00:32:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I'm submitting a packet of documents and photos associated with this case. The photos accurately depict the property during my visits. It shall my findings that permit require
no permit. A permit was denied and closed. Storage of recreational vehicles, appendix A, article 13, section 14A through D, for the unapproved storage of a recreational vehicle due to the storage location, the length of the RV, which is over 22 feet, and
items such as couch cushions, boxes, wood, etc. I visited the site five times. During my first inspection, I found the property in violation of the above-mentioned sections of the city code. I have attended to gain voluntary compliance in this case by my last inspection on August 17, 2023. The property remains in violation. I have been working on this case since April 11, 2023, and I have not had contact with a property owner after several attempts. I brought this case before the Code Enforcement Board.
certified and posted on the property in violation. Due to longevity of the case and no progress made, staff finds in Case 23-451 that the owner is in violation and recommend their deeds be given to come into compliance or a fine of $50 for a permit required, 25 for storage of recreational vehicles, and 25 for storing outdoors ‸ be imposed for each of the violations remain until compliance is achieved.
a day. The storage or recreation vehicle is $25 a day, and storage ‸ outdoors is $25 a day, And that the correction will be done within 30 days of the ‸ violation.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:35:15–00:35:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:35:17–00:35:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:35:46–00:35:46 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
permit required appendix A, article 15, section 2A for the unpermitted alterations and or installation of windows, doors, electrical, and plumbing. I visited the site four times. During my first inspection, I found the property in violation of the above-mentioned sections of the city code.
last inspection on August 17, 2023, the property remains in violation. I've been working on this case since July 5, 2023, and have had contact with a contractor and lawyer on behalf of the property owner.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:36:17–00:36:18 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:36:23–00:36:23 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:36:39–00:36:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:36:51–00:36:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Okay. And then my next question was that you did have contact with a lawyer and with a contractor and what type of contact was that? Was it agreeable? Did they seem like they were going to be moving forward or were they argumentative? How did you feel about those conversations?
in violation the first time. So he's aware of the issues and in speaking with him, he's not argumentative and wants to give a good estimate and based off of his prior work there, he believes that there may be other work done without permit as well. So he's going to give me a follow-up here later.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:45–00:38:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:39:03–00:39:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
submitting photos that I took through my re-inspections of the property. They accurately depict the property during my visits. This case is brought to the Code Board on April 20th, 2023 and was found in violation of site plan approval required, appendix A, article 13. section 1B for the alterations made to the property without a site plan. The board order compliance date was July 20th, 2023 and that Board Order was to remove the
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:39:51–00:39:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and it was sent certified and posted. At this time, the property remains in violation with no progress or contact from the property owner since the hearing date.
I would also like to just add for the record, Mr. Chairman, the Board actually divided this case into two separate orders. One was to remove the millings in a specific set of time, 90 days, and then gave him additional time to work on gaining the site plan through
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:41:14–00:41:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the order for the millings, although I was well aware that was part of it. So a little bit of a miscommunication there. But you said it was delivered certified.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:41:34–00:41:34 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
But I'm not claiming I'm not aware because it was in the meeting. But I've been going down the road trying to get the site plan done. I contacted four civil engineers because I was a little bit confused on just what I needed for a site plan.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:41:55–00:41:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
paperwork to these people and then two, three weeks later they'd come back and say, we can't take it. We're too busy. We're working on big site plans. ‸ So I just wasn't successful in finding anybody to even do it. And then the question was always asked, well, what does the city
full site plan? And I'd get these crazy estimates of $25,000 or $35,000 to do a complete site plan. I'm not familiar with what that is exactly. But today, yesterday I had a conference call with a city manager trying to get some clarity. And I think it was Kristen who was on that call. And I do understand now that there's a small site plan and they told me where to find that on the city website and everything. So I'm going to go down that road. I do need to get the property in compliance. I own the building behind it. I've invested about
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:43:04–00:43:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:43:11–00:43:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
because I don't know, a long time, 15 years ‸ at least, I don't know, ‸ maybe Dennis knows that it's been an AT&T storage lot. So I assumed that I could just, a big assumption, obviously that I could convert it to a parking lot because it was, ‸ you know, that's ‸ basically what it was for storage yard for junk.
I actually did the improvements. As you can see, I made it into a very nice parking lot. I understand the millings weren't an approved substance. That's on me.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:45–00:43:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:56–00:44:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
We, I complied with that finally. But what I'm here now, ‸ I do want to continue down this road, but I need, I'll need some more time. So my other, what I'm asking is my other, uh,
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:44:51–00:44:51 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
either compliant or non-compliant. That's the only thing we're here for now because that's, that's where it is now. Okay. Well, I'm asking for more time. We, we don't have the leeway to give you more time. This, it's in non-compliant now.
Yeah. The time to give you more time would have been on April 20th on the hearing date. That's when the timeline was established. So we can't go back in time and change that. ‸ And I, I remember that hearing very well because I,
He said, regardless of how the site plan goes, the millings were never going to be permitted, that they were only allowed in industrial areas in the city. And even then there were additional constraints that were put on the properties and that this type of property is in a consent decree area. and because of that, there's no way that millings are ever going to be approved.
Okay. So, and you've already admitted on the record that you know, um, that you had the 90 days, that you understand that it's not in compliance. So I think I'm ready to make a motion.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:46:25–00:46:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:46:40–00:46:40 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
trying to get civil engineers to finish up. That being said, when we at least, you know, hold off and make them remove the millings because the milling is a suitable sub base. Exactly.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:46:54–00:46:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 00:46:56–00:47:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
he's not qualified to draw a minor site plan himself, obviously, and meet all the requirements. He takes a civil engineer and several meetings with the city to resolve that. And, you know, I just feel that we're putting
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:07–00:48:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:28–00:48:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
$25 a day, I believe is what was on the order. But you didn't find it per violations when you split. You just found it into one. I would also like to mention ‸ whether Mr. Lightholder was here or not. The bigger problem here is the fact that this is a consent decree and meetings were held, and ‸ the parking lot as a standalone is not going to be allowed in a consent decree. And whatever AT&T did when they left, they lost whatever grandfathering they had.
The longer part is because he's going to try to join the apartment complex and this property to make it one parcel, which we don't know if that's going to happen. So
said he would remove the millings because he would end up paving anyway. That's how we got here. But at the end of the day, this is a consent decree. This was actually done and performed without any approvals whatsoever. Meetings were held with the city. So there was general knowledge of what was transpiring at this location.
I've done some research on this as well. So on the consent decree, the way I read it, it's ‸ if it changes use. It never went out of use. I mean, it never went out of, it never became a dormant property.
and Mr. Chair, there's a difference between overflow from a business and creating a complete parking lot. So you can try to wiggle that in there, but it is two separate uses at the end of the day.
That's a big difference between paving it and creating parking spaces for parking. So I understand what Mr. Levin-Sailor is stating. However, the consent decree is specific and you can't just continue to change and manufacture. Actually, the idea of the consent decree was that these properties would go back to being residential and have businesses that benefited the residential structure of the consent decree. That is not a parking lot. So we can debate the consent decree.
city of Coco. So that can be debated, but this is where we are. And again, the board is the one that made the motion to split our violation into the two. So that's why we're here today.
lot. Will be the same. And he said, yes. And that was before I bought the property. This is why I'm feeling a little aggrieved. So I, based on that, I bought the property. Now, maybe that's my bad, but I went to the city, asked for a meeting with Mr.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:52:29–00:52:29 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
He pulled out, he gave me printed copies, which I have in my file of the usage of that property. And it said, just like Mr. Dennis said, it was, ‸ it was a junkyard. It was full of spools and junk and buildings and shacks. And I took all that out. So I improved this property greatly.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:52:46–00:52:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
just, I came in, I said, I just want to make sure that I can make a parking lot here. And she also told me, yes, according to the 49, it's 49, 4900 storage.
It listed a whole lot of stuff, including vehicles. Now it did say storage of vehicles and not residential parking like Kristen had mentioned to me on our phone call yesterday.
you know, I'm feeling a bit of grief because I had two meetings with the cities and one of you just said that I didn't. And I did two meetings and I had the notes from the meetings and I have the pamphlets and I have the printed out, um, zoning that they gave me. And this is what I based my decision on. I bought the property and I had to buy and I had to buy AT&T out of the rest of their lease. And that was a, you know, that was a legal hassle. So it was a continuous use. It went right from AT&T using it to me improving it in three days.
me I had a big pile of dirt right in that picture. And sadly it was the guy that passed away, but he said, just make sure you get this mess cleaned up when you're done. And the contractor was working, he was putting the millions down right in plain sight. ‸ So I didn't, you know,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:54:15–00:54:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:54:37–00:54:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:54:46–00:54:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:55:06–00:55:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:55:14–00:55:14 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:55:20–00:55:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:55:47–00:55:48 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
to somebody about what could be done in that zone would still be to submit this information for approval. That was not done. A conversation regarding ‸ parking lots, um, took place.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:56:03–00:56:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:56:07–00:56:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:56:11–00:56:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
you might want to keep your eye on this because this is what's going on. You still need approval before you laid any millions down before you did any work.
I'm saying that that parking lot is different than what was there previous under the consent decree. And I do not believe it would be allowed now, but we won't know that until he actually goes through his plans and what he intends to do on the property. And as a standalone property, it's definitely not going to be able to be a parking lot. So we don't even know if he's going to conjoin the two lots and get that done.
a consent decree area and I don't know where the consent decree area is or where it's not. But I know that we did discuss it on the 20th in great detail that Mr. Bunt was very detailed about what the requirements were in the property.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:57:16–00:57:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
keep beating a dead horse because the bottom line is what we're here for right now is. Compliant or non-compliant. If someone wants to make a motion to table this, I'm fine with that. But we're not going to keep going back and forth on this and why this happened, that happened.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:57:44–00:57:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
on and again, the bottom line is all we're here now is for is compliant or non-compliant. That's all we can do for you. We can't give you any more time.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:58:10–00:58:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
finish with the permitting process. So when I first got cited for the gate, which you see right there and the and the millings, I went in and in arrears and submitted two permits for each. ‸ And they devised me that it wasn't a commercial property. It was a residential property. I have an email right here with a city bounced it back saying you need to put these permits in as a commercial property.
got finalized and done. And then all of a sudden they said, well, it's not a commercial property, even though your own building and building department made me submit the permits.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 00:59:29–01:00:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I don't think that. I mean, I think it's okay. I think that's okay. I mean, ‸ you're just. No doubt. Yeah. No, I mean, I think you're just making a suggestion.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:00:49–01:00:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:00:58–01:01:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:01:01–01:01:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:01:15–01:01:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:01:28–01:01:28 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:01:36–01:01:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:02:00–01:02:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:02:44–01:02:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:02:16–01:02:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:02:22–01:02:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:02:27–01:02:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:02:45–01:03:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I sent a notice of hearing for non compliance on July 27th, 2023, and it was sent certified and posted some progress has been made. And my last contact with the property owner was on July 24th, 2023 informing him. His compliance
the property owner that when progress was made to contact me for inspection to confirm the compliance at this time, the property remains in violation and the property owner is present.
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:03:38–01:03:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:03:59–01:04:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It's not my fault. And talking about the storage unit, he said a shed trailers and everything else that was on the property. I moved to trailers also removed the shed that was over there.
box in the, you see the jump house. That's my daughter bounce house. That was over there in order to pull it out of the water and the mud that's back there. No cars, no vehicles.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:04:48–01:04:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:04:56–01:04:56 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:05:12–01:05:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 01:05:40–01:05:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Mr. Chair, as we mentioned in the last hearing, um, he received an approval to sign an agreement with the city to ‸ fence in a vacant parcel of land. Um, he never went back and got his permit.
agreement was written and then he should have got his permit, but there's nothing in the system that says that permit was ever, the fence was ever permitted or approved. I also don't have in the record, a copy of the signed agreement that was written for that, which might be part of the reason why it was never finished permitting. So, Mr. Thomas is correct. He was granted that option and an agreement was written. And whether it was actually executed via signatures and the permit pulled that has not been done.
connex boxes, if they're going to be used as a shared have to be permitted if they're going to be on a property. ‸ And then the shed, he has removed the shed and stuff. There's just the connex box in the back. And then he has to get a, a fence permit and find out what's going on with the agreement. The agreement was written. I don't have a signed copy anywhere in laser fish or in any files that I can find where it was actually executed, you know, through signatures.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:07:24–01:07:25 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
I met with him. And before that it was Jake Williams and all of them. I signed the paper and gave it to miss a bunch before she went to Melbourne or whatever. So if they lost my paperwork, that has nothing to do with.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:07:49–01:07:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:07:54–01:07:54 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
So I would get with the building department and, you know, grab the agreement and then just get your permit reinstated to get that. Done. However, in any agreement, it does state what use can be used with the fence there. So you can't use it for storage or anything like that. That's actually written in the original agreement that you can't use this vacant piece of land to store equipment and stuff on there.
If you don't have a copy and he don't have a copy, how do you know what it says? Because you, you testified that it said that he couldn't use it for storage, but you also said that you don't have a copy. So how can you tell me that it says this when you don't have a copy?
out what the attorneys offers, what the agreement is supposed to be for a vacant parcel of land. And they would never give him authorization to use that other than for fencing office property. So that's why I can confidently say that.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:09:55–01:09:55 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
as a fence ‸ repair. So I did it as a fence repair because I was showing them because the property, the only reason I got the property is because it has some to mental value. My uncle used to have a house right there. And then there's no structure. If you go over to the left, you will see where the, uh, sub to tank and all that stuff was. So it's still structural went over there.
And that's why ‸ the fence up there. And like I said, it's, it's exaggerated. What I would have had it moved, ‸ moved it over to the other property or whatever, but I can't because it's wet back there. It's muddy. So nobody's going to come in and bring that truck in and take a chance on tearing this stuff up and try to move it. And I did stop him and ask him. He told me to leave the gate open so he can come take pictures.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:11:24–01:11:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
He has no business even seeing ‸ anyway. Now, Mr. Murdoch died and he told me before he passed away, listen, Mr. Thomas, you got approved for the fence. Uh, whatever's on the property is on the property and it has nothing to do with me. So they approve you to have the fence. I'm just closing my case. The case was closed and he came and reopened the case. Why? I don't know. I mean, before all he had to do was tell me, I mean,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:12:23–01:12:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:12:40–01:12:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:12:49–01:12:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 01:12:56–01:13:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And then the connex boxes require a permit to be on the property. Okay. So I don't think that there was a dispute in that. It just takes him going to the building department and obtaining these permits.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:13:47–01:13:47 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
he has to do it. The issue that's before you today is that he's been found in violations of these. He hasn't corrected them. If he's found in noncompliance and he corrects them a week from now or a month from now, he can always come back before the board for a lien reduction. And then these issues can be addressed at that time. But the fence has no permit. There's no dispute about that. If you look in the system, it says fence permit denied. And that was, that's what started the whole situation. And then he should have went back and got the fence permit.
permit. He's removed some of that, but the connex box is right there behind the fence panel, which you can see over top of the fence. So whether the gates open or not, you know, there's a connex box there. If he wants to keep it, he has to get a permit. If he's going to remove it, he has to remove it, but it needs to, we gave him a period of time to remove that. So I just don't think that the permit required is in dispute. I think the evidence is right there.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:14:46–01:14:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:14:50–01:14:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:14:56–01:14:56 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
it. Right. And then when Mr. Tom, Mr. Thomas is working on it, he's removed a shed and a connex box and he's pulling stuff out of there now and threw it out by the edge of the road. If he's in non-compliance, as soon as he's in compliance, he can fill out a form and come back before the board and get a lien reduction.
Well, there's an issue with that as well. He's going to have to call waste management and see. The problem is he put it in front of the vacant lot. And since he's not paying utilities and stuff on the vacant lot, waste management may not pick it up.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:15:59–01:16:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And if you go back to the next meeting, how he just explained about getting the permits and doing this and that, that wasn't that didn't come out like that in that last meeting. You know what I'm
All that has been moved off of the property. So to say that I wasn't doing anything, I even spoke with you and you told me to go and talk with Mr. Munster. I say, sir, what can I do?
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:17:12–01:17:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
correct the record. I did not say he didn't do anything. I actually gave him credit for removing the shed, any items and for cleaning out the issues that are there now. But he had a compliance date, which was July 20th. These are photos from August 17th. He didn't meet the compliance date set by the board. And I did mention the same thing about permitting at the last hearing. I'm pretty steadfast in the way I portray things. I did mention about the fence permit in the last meeting. And it expressed to him if he wants to keep the shed and the cargo container, he would have to go to building.
accessory structures on a vacant lot. Now, if he owned the house next door, which this was also discussed, he could conjoin the lots and that would change the whole outlook of the situation. But it's a rental.
road that he pulled out and cleaned up and he's kept the front clear. But at this date on August 17th, these violations all exist on this property. And he's on his way to get them to answer Mr. Davis's question. If he knows waste management picks it up. Great. If they don't, he's gonna ‸ have to call them and get it picked up.
And then, like I said, if there's a fine that's levied here today based on noncompliance, he can come back. We'll remember this case, this board, and he can project then and then the board, it's up to the board what they want to reduce the amount to, you know, whatever it could be. So we're not, he's not dead in the water now. He still gets another bite of the apple after he comes into compliance.
Mr. Thomas really needs a house and I've actually even went to the housing department and made suggestions. I had to go back twice because the one lady that was here left and they hired new people. But I would like to see Mr. Thomas get assistance and be able to put the house, which has long since been demolished, back on the property and, um, do it that way.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:19:52–01:19:52 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:20:02–01:20:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Um, so, um, Mr. Bunt, um, can you tell me what, what does Terry have to do? Um, can we ask for an extension on this? And what does he necessarily have to do to get this clear?
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:20:36–01:20:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; the machine readings disagree here; words the first reading may have missed · 01:20:55–01:21:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:21:12–01:21:12 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
He already moved all the pool and the debris and other stuff, and he got rid of a shed. So we're this close. But then after it's all done, he can't go back to putting stuff behind the fence as storage because it's just a vacant lot.
What happened is he applied for one. He was denied because you can't fence in vacant property. Right. But then he went through process, and it went to the council, and ‸ they determined that they would do an agreement with him.
He says he's got the agreement. They did it. Now he just needs to go back and activate that permit and go, because when you look in the system now, it says fence denied.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:22:23–01:22:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
a primary structure issue. There's no house. There's no primary unit. So you can't have an accessory if you don't have a primary. So what if you want to make it into one? That he has to talk to the building officials. When he goes up to get the fence permit, that would be something I would discuss with the building official. Or if he has another idea of how to put a house on that property, he would discuss with them.
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:22:24–01:22:51 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
So that's what I'm saying. He's he's almost there. Yeah. Let's get it done. And then whatever he fixes, he can always come back and tell the board. They'll remember this case and the strides he's made, and he can ask for a lien reduction.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:23:44–01:23:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:24:11–01:24:11 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:24:34–01:24:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I'm submitting photos that I took to my re-inspections of the property. They actually depict the property during my visits. This case was brought to the code board on May 18, 2023 and we found in violation of the permit required.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:24:59–01:25:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
AC units and windows. The board ordered compliance date was July 17, 2023. I sent the notice of hearing for non-compliance on July 27, 2023 and it was sent certified and posted. There has been no progress made and I have had contact with a property owner who's been unable to hire a contractor. At this time, the property remains in violation.
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:25:29–01:25:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:25:31–01:25:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:25:45–01:25:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:25:58–01:26:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:26:09–01:26:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:26:18–01:26:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
9th, 2023 for man search shingles only, not the structure's roof. The scope of work did not address the decking, the underlayment or any other parts of the roof. I sent the notice of hearing for noncompliance on July 27th, 2023, and it was said certified and posted. There has been some progress made and I have had contact with a property owner who was present. At this time, the property remains in violation.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:26:48–01:26:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:26:58–01:27:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:27:13–01:27:13 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
this for quite some time now. We did a lot of work there even this weekend. We're there for another three days with two guys cleaning everything up. That area that's there right on King Street and Fisk is a mess. ‸ We have been there numerous times, myself with other people. The people that live on the street, and everybody can
And it's just an ongoing saga that does not stop, and it's not about to stop. I mean, we've been in front of the board here. You know, maybe we could put chain link fence up. No, we can't do that. Maybe we could do this.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:28:19–01:28:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
They already did have the permits and everything. Today I was with them again saying, when are you guys going to come here and start? Well, Mr. French,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:28:29–01:28:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So they gave me what they call a letter of compliance. Even with this letter of compliance, they're still four weeks out. So, I mean, I don't know what to say about any of this.
We bleached it. We pressure cleaned it this weekend. You know, there were many things that were there that have now been solved. You know, there is still more things to go. And that is all with the roofing company. You know, you
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:29:04–01:29:04 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Mr. Chair, just for the record, so we stay on track. He was never cited to get a permit. He's the one that mentioned that he was going to have a roofer come in to fix the roofs and drainage violation, which would require a permit. As of today, the roof has not been touched. No work has been done. The fascia still needs painting. There's still chips and marks on the stucco that need to be fixed.
Excuse me. And there's still boarded up windows where you can see the notices posted. He can only board a window for 30 days and it has to be painted the same color of the property. We are well past that.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:30:01–01:30:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:30:24–01:30:24 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
was going to be up for the hurricane season to paint all that to match the brick on the outside, which we did. Well, you can see on all of those are all done. So we've been trying to comply with you guys every step of
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:30:51–01:30:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
did in 2022, with the exception of the pieces of wood and garbage in the parking lot were picked up. But it's a chronic issue with the trash and litter. That's the least of my worries concerning the condition of this building and this man should and everything that's there. So he is not in compliance. These pictures look exactly like they did at the last board in May.
Mr. ‸ Do you think the fact that he's hired a contractor and that a permit has been pulled for the roof is an indication of him ‸ to try and come into compliance?
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:31:46–01:31:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:32:09–01:32:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
application online today. It doesn't mean I have a permit. The permit is there when it's issued. So there's reviews and stuff. So they may have filled out the permit in June. They didn't submit everything they needed for approval, and it didn't get issued until August 9th. However,
on the side of the building. Those all need to be addressed. That's what we brought before this board in May. That's what was ruled upon. I submit as of today, this building looks the same as when we took the pictures back in May.
And I understand having to hire a contractor and get a new roof, because I actually just did that. I don't know if you know this, but we had a horrible hailstorm pass through Cocoa about, I don't know, it was it, eight weeks ago? It did horrible damage to my house. If anyone had been ‸ standing outside my house during that
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:33:37–01:33:38 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
event, they probably would have been injured enough to go to the hospital. So I was able to get an entirely new roof, permits, hiring contractors, all of that within this time period. I'm telling you that I did it personally myself. I hired a contractor. The work was completed. It's all been done within a 90-day period. So while I understand your frustrations, I'm telling you my personal experience hasn't been quite like yours, I've been able to find contractors who are wanting to come to work today.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:34:10–01:34:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:34:26–01:34:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:35:13–01:35:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:35:16–01:35:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:35:18–01:35:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:35:40–01:35:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:36:11–01:36:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:36:26–01:36:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:36:33–01:36:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
to put together like a short training based on the new stuff that's come up from the courts on our motions and just how we can proceed forward so that we're not so long winded like we were today? Maybe we could just send something out
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:36:54–01:36:54 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:37:00–01:37:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
to arrange a workshop or something to go over with the board because we do have new members and we may want to discuss sunshine law and some other items as well.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:37:16–01:37:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:37:43–01:37:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording