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 (1355_CE_Reg_Minutes_03_17_2022.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: Jim Gifford, Edward Green, George Brown, Lloyd Roberts, Sharri Scott
(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: Kimberly Curtis, David Lightholder, Jocelyn Scott
Also listed as present (staff and other roles): Dennis Bunt (Code Enforcement Manager), Anthony Marchica (Police Lieutenant), Augusto Gonzalez-Ruiz (Code Enforcement Officer), Debra Babb-Nutcher (Board Attorney), Darla Crowl (Recording Secretary), Lorraine Koss (Council Member)
Adopted actions (16)
to approve to the agenda of March 17, 2022 (moved by Roberts, seconded by Green); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 1
to approve to the minutes of January 17, 2022 (moved by Brown, seconded by Roberts); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 2
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Green, seconded by Roberts); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 2
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Roberts, seconded by Scott); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 3
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Roberts, seconded by Green); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 3
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Green, seconded by Roberts); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 4
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Brown, seconded by Green); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 4
to amend Staffs recommendation and give the property owner until June 16, 2022 (90 days) and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Brown, seconded by Scott); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 4
to amend Staff's recommendation and give the property owner until May 16, 2022 (60 days) and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Roberts, seconded by Green); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 5
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Roberts, seconded by Green); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 5
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Green, seconded by Roberts); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 6
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Brown, seconded by Scott); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 6
to amend Staff's recommendation and give the property owner until September 16, 2022 (180 days) with (30 day) updates for site plan approval to the Board Members, give until April 26, 2022 (10 days) to get permits and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Green, seconded by Roberts); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 7
to amend Staffs recommendation and give the property owner until May 16, 2022 (60 days) with (30 day) updates on the progress, give until April 26, 2022 (10 days) to get permits and find the Property Owner in violation (moved by Green, seconded by Scott); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 8
to approve Staff's recommendation and find the Owner in Non-Compliance (moved by Brown, seconded by Green); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 8
to approve staff's recommendation to City Council the lien reduction be in the amount of nine hundred sixty-nine dollars and seventy-seven cents ($969.77) (moved by Brown, seconded by Scott); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 9
Money named in the minutes' motions (what each motion did with the amount, in its own words)
$969.77 — Code Enforcement: recommended to another body (City Council decides; not a final approval). “approve staff's recommendation to City Council the lien reduction be in the amount of nine hundred sixty-nine dollars and seventy-seven cents ($969.77)” (motion result: CARRIED; the City's minutes (1355_CE_Reg_Minutes_03_17_2022.pdf, p. 9); fiscal period not recorded)
Agenda (the City's wording)
The City's agenda for this meeting is on file (CE_Reg_Agenda_03_17_2022), 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.
292 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 15 voices separated from the audio.
22 short machine repair(s) (29 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 93.3% of 13,936 content words.
Dotted words (326 places) are ordinary wording differences: hover or tap to see the other reading.
292 passages (20% 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:
01:27:18 (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: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 00:00:41–00:00:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:00:51–00:00:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:01:19–00:01:19 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
Okay. Uh, I got to know Steve. I wish I knew him better. And, uh, a true gentleman, uh, did quality work for the city. Military man. A family man. Uh, I started to get to know Steve a little better and we'd meet up once in
while at a little restaurant up in US-1. And I always wanted to make sure I, I said, Steve, you got a chance. I want you to come down. We're going to go out to eat. I'll buy. And, uh, I just wanted to have a little remembrance for the man. And, uh, I, uh, want Steve to rest in peace and know that we love them. And thank you for a beautiful man.
Thank you. Okay. You should all have an agenda for tonight's meeting. And I have, uh, only one change tonight to make. And that's item number seven, which has complied. With that change, I'll take a motion to approve the agenda. ‸ Mr.
Second. Thank you. All in favor say aye. Aye. The agenda is approved. And the minutes for January 20. Are before you. We, of course, did not have a meeting in February. So if you have taken a look at those minutes, are there any changes, updates or additions?
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:06:39–00:06:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yes, sir. At this time, I'd like to submit the document packets and the presentation for the record. I would also like to just mention you're going to notice a change in the PowerPoint this evening. We changed the format to meet city regulations for ADA. And there's also been some added information on there regarding code violations, ordinances and narrative with each picture. So don't be shocked if you see the change.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:07:29–00:07:32 · 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 and show my findings of permit required. I visited the site nine times during my first inspection. 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
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:07:54–00:07:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:08:01–00:08:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
made attempts to contact the property owner. I brought this case before code enforcement board, as I have been working this case for 197 days and the violations have not been resolved. I sent the notice of hearing on March 4th, 2022, and it was sent certified and posted on the property in violation.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:08:23–00:08:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
That the owner is in violation and recommends 30 days be given to come into compliance or a fine of $25 be imposed for each day. The violation remains until compliance is achieved. ‸ The violation for a failure secure ‸ structure has been cured. Then the reflections, uh, for that are just permit required now.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:05–00:09:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:14–00:09:17 · 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 · 00:09:19–00:09:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:41–00:09:46 · 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 depict the property during my visits and show my findings of protective treatment, storing junker autos, storing outdoors. I visited the site nine times during my first inspection. 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
the property remains in violation. I have been working on this case since September 1st, 2021, and I've made attempts to contact the property owner. I brought this case before ‸ code enforcement board, as I've been working this case for 197 days, and the violations have not been fully resolved. I sent the notice of hearing on March 4th, 2022, and it was ‸ certified and posted on the property in violation.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:10:47–00:10:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:11:11–00:11:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Chair, I'd like to make a motion. Go ahead, please. In the case of CE 21-0489, accept staff recommendations and the occupant, I'm sorry, the owner, be given 30 days to come into compliance to be fined to find a $50 per day until compliance is achieved.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:11:35–00:11:35 · 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 · 00:11:45–00:11:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The address is 1046 Myrtle Lane. I'm submitting a packet of documents and photos associated with this case. The photos accurately depict the property during my visits and show my findings of accessory structures,
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:12:03–00:12:03 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
up buildings, storing outdoors, storing junker autos. 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 · 00:12:14–00:12:15 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
case for 174 days and the violations have not been fully resolved. I sent the notice of hearing on March 4th, 2022, and it was sent certified and posted on the property in violation. Staff finds in case 21-0581 that the owner is in violation and recommends 30 days to be given to come into compliance or a fine of $75 be imposed for each day that violations remain until compliance is achieved. The violation of storing junker autos has been cured.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:24–00:13:27 · 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 · 00:13:59–00:14:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I just need some time to take care of it because I'm alone. I'm by myself. So like I said, my husband passed away. So I'm by myself and so I just need some time to take care of it.
You don't have a whole lot to do here really. That's fine. Is that ‸ good? And when you complete the projects or if you have any question about them, call Officer Gonzalez. And once you're completed, also call him so he can mark it as completed.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:15:54–00:15:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:26–00:16:27 · 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 and show my findings of accumulation of trash and litter, protective treatment, storing outdoors, and unsafe buildings.
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 317-2022, the property remains in violation. I have been working on this case since October 1st, 2021, and I've made attempts to contact the property owner.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:26–00:17:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:34–00:17:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:35–00:17:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:18:04–00:18:04 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:18:10–00:18:11 · 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 · 00:18:15–00:18:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:18:26–00:18:26 · 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 · 00:18:34–00:18:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I move that based on the photos and testimony from Officer Gonzalez, we find that the building is unsanitary, that protective treatment is not up to standard. There's an accumulation of trash and litter, and there's inappropriate storing outdoors, and
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:18:52–00:19:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:19:17–00:19:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The address is 807 North 5th Boulevard. I am submitting a packet of documents and photos associated with this case. The photos accurately depict the property during my visits and show my findings of accessory structures, accumulation of trash and litter, and weeds.
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 ‸ my last inspection on 3-17-2022, the property remains in violation. I have
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:19–00:20:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:20:25–00:20:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:20:33–00:20:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
owner is in violation and recommends 30 days to be given to come into compliance or a fine of $75 be imposed for each day the violations remain until compliance is achieved.
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:53–00:20:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:20:56–00:20:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
to the left. Um, but there's signs in disrepair, the wooden fence that surrounds the property is missing slats falling down, the back of the property is always overgrown, the front gets cut maybe once a month.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:21:45–00:21:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:22:16–00:22:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The address is 10 32 Peachtree Street. I am submitting a packet of documents and photos associated with this case. The photos accurately depict the property during my visits and show my findings of accumulation of trash and litter, protective treatment, and weeds.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:22:40–00:22:40 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
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 3 17 2022, the property remains in violation.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:13–00:23:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:24:14–00:24:15 · 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 · 00:24:16–00:24:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I just purchased that property and I have a closing today. And I think I come, I start complying with some of the, um, the debris and the stuff that need to be taken care of. I would like to get some more time to finish up my, my action that I start doing on the property. I probably need probably about 60 or 90 days to complete it.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:24:55–00:24:58 · 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 · 00:25:02–00:25:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:25:23–00:25:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
motion is passed. Uh, congratulations on your purchase. And when you finish the, uh, projects, be sure to call the code office and let them know it's all cleaned up.
The address is 1101 Greenwood way. I am submitting a packet of documents and photos associated with this case. The photos accurately depict the property during my visits and show my findings of accessory structures. Permit required storing outdoors. I visited the site seven times during my first inspection. 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
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:26:37–00:26:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
5th, 2021, and I've made attempts to contact the property owner. I brought the case before ‸ code enforcement board as I've been working on this case for
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:26:47–00:26:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
certified and posted on the property in violation. Staff finds in case 21-0632 that the owner is in violation and recommends 30 days be given to come into compliance or a fine of $75 be imposed for each day the violations remains until compliance is achieved. And the property owner is here.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:27:32–00:27:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It's your opportunity to tell us what you're going to do to take care of the problems here. You'll need to be sworn in if you look over to the secretary.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:50–00:27:53 · 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 · 00:28:12–00:28:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
south side, south side of the house, there's no washer dryer there. It's all on the trailer. Get ready to be moved. As soon as all that's moved that we can do on that side of the house, it's all gone.
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:49–00:28:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Mr. Chair, she would need a permit for the shed even if she relocates it. So she'll have to go to the building department and apply for a shed permit. Yeah,
wherever you're going to put it, they need to know. Hopefully in the backyard. Okay, well that's that's fine. ‸ There are setbacks and things that they'll discuss with you.
She did replace a panel. You can kind of see it in that picture. Um, on the side, she needs to do that. She needs to do that in the, in the back and in the front, wherever it's rotted out or missing panels. If she keeps it to repairs, she would not need a permit.
for that as well. So she doesn't need a permit just to replace the slats, correct? No, just if she's going to just use a few slats, you can do up to 400 linear feet of repair. But if you take out a post, that's a structural component that absolutely needs a permit.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:30:30–00:30:30 · 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)
the sheds actually been there and it may require a little bit more as far as construction of the shed. I don't know if she still has all that paperwork to give them or not.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:55–00:31:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
um, like the except staff recommendations and their factual evidence of the property owner being in violation of accessory structures, storing outdoors and permit required and give the property owner 60 days to come into compliance or be fine. A fine of $75 per day until compliance is achieved.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:31:24–00:31:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
so much. Motion on the floor with a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? There are none. So the motion passed. That wasn't so difficult, was it?
Flag: the machine readings disagree here; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:31:36–00:31:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
During my first inspection, I found the property in violation of the above-mentioned sections of the city code. I've attempted to gain voluntary compliance in this case. But as my last inspection on March 17, 2022, the property remains in violation. I've been working on this case since October 14, 2021, and I've made attempts to contact the property owner. I brought this case before Code Enforcement Board. As I've been working this case for 154 days, the violations have not been fully resolved. I sent the notice of hearing on March 4, 2022, and it was sent certified and posted on the property in violation. Staff finds in case 21-0674 that the owner is in violation and recommends 30 days be given to come into compliance, or a fine of $100 be imposed for each state of violation remains until compliance is achieved. The owner is not present.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:34:09–00:34:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:34:36–00:34:39 · 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 and show my findings of accumulation of trash and litter, accessory structures, protective treatment, and weeds. I visited the site seven times. During my first inspection, I found the property in violation of the above mentioned sections of the city code. I've attempted to gain voluntary compliance in this case, but as of my last inspection on 3-17-2022, the property remains in violation. I have been working on this case since October 14th, 2021, and I've made attempts to contact the property owner. I brought this case before Code Enforcement Board as
The violations have not been fully resolved. I sent the notice of hearing on March 4th, 2022, and it was sent certified and posted on the property in violation. Staff finds in case 21-0675 that the owner is in violation and recommends 30 days to be given to come into compliance or a fine of $100 be imposed for each day the violations remain until compliance is achieved. The owner is not present.
Yeah, if you look in this picture, there's cans and cups and bags, and that kind of extends all the way across the property. It's scattered out trash. There's items up near the wall there that are old like oil container plastic drums that are sitting out, and then back there there's an old car seat with some garbage there off into the weeds up against the wall.
what must have happened. Because when the case started, the doors were not like that. They developed that throughout the case. That's one of the reasons they weren't cited for being ‸ open is because they were actually closed in the beginning.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:38:04–00:38:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:38:21–00:38:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:38:48–00:38:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:38:57–00:39:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:39:06–00:39:08 · 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 and show my findings of business tax receipt, parking in the yard, storing outdoors, parking large trucks in the residential area.
found the property in violation of the above mentioned sections of the city code. I've attempted to gain voluntary compliance in this case, but as of my last inspection on March 17th, 2022, the property remains in violation.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:40:01–00:40:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:40:58–00:41:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yeah. Sometimes he gets it on the driveway that's placed there. And then other times, like in this picture, it's off to the side and in the grass blocking the front door.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:19–00:41:24 · 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 · 00:42:16–00:42:23 · 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 · 00:42:28–00:42:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:38–00:42:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:40–00:42:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The address is 2514 north Indian river drive. I'm submitting a packet of documents and photos associated with his case. The photos accurately depict the property during my visits and show my findings of the
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. I have attempted to gain voluntary compliance in this case, but as ‸ my last inspection on March 17 2022, the property remains in violation. I've been working on this case since November 17 2021 and have made attempts to contact the property owner. I brought this case before ‸ code enforcement board as I've been working this case for 120 days. The violations have not been fully resolved. I sent the
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:43:45–00:43:48 · 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 · 00:43:54–00:43:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
recommend 30 days be given to come into compliance for a fine of $250 be imposed for each day. The violation remains until compliance is achieved. The property owner is not here, but the property representative is.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:44:22–00:44:23 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
over and he cleared it all out. And he added some dirt, some fill and, uh, small pebbles along the right away. But he did all that without any zoning approval or any site plan of what he was going to do to the property.
You can see where we starting to work on the dock in the back and there was no permits pulled on this property at all. And that's the pool, which was originally grown over and covered, but through the clearing is now open.
go around the pool for safety, which he did get a permit for that. But the railings, the other fence and all the other items he hasn't done. And there is no open building permit. Um, there's no site plan approval.
It actually started in October and we issued stop work orders, um, worked with them. We had to wait for DEP and the army Corps of engineers because there was a dock and they're right there on the river. And again, we don't know what items were cut down by the river line. We were also working with Abigail Morgan with public works in regards to the right away, um, the way they dug it up and put the unapproved stone in there that was actually going out into the street. What we basically have now is a major erosion problem there because they uprooted all the trees and the grass. And now when it rains, um, I actually don't have any pictures, but at least big trenches of dirt that's just flowing down towards the river because there's no sustainability in the grass or anything there. It's all been taken out.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:46:59–00:47:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Um, I'm here tonight on behalf of Ron House, who's the owner of the property. My name is Helen Yarbrough. He can't be here and he sends his regrets. He had a family issue in Miami that he had to take care of. He's drafted a letter to the board, um, to, um, address all of the issues. I can read it to you or I've made copies for everybody that you can read, whichever you would prefer. Uh,
Mr. Chair, if she would like, she can give the letter to Mr. Gonzalez and he could read it into the record. I'd like to read the whole letter. Oh, okay. Just a summary just for the record.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:48:44–00:48:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:48:51–00:48:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Okay, I don't think we need to take our time then. So the issues that before the board tonight are really just permits, which can be applied for tomorrow morning, and a site plan which will take a little time to get done of course, that would require some architectural stuff and so forth.
Nothing is going on. Whatever that dirt digger device that you saw, that's not there. That outer fence got removed. We've resung the grass, removed ‸ the gravel, put grass back down in the area where it was removed. So nothing is going on right now. There's... Until we get a site plan and get the survey done, Mr. House doesn't want to proceed with doing any permitting until he has that in hand. That was the understanding that he needed that in hand in order to be able to submit for a permit.
‸ And for the officers, the work that she just explained that has been done with regard to the gravel and sod and seeding, has that mitigated the problem with the runoff?
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:50:57–00:50:58 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:51:05–00:51:05 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
and began doing stuff prior to having any kind of permits or approval. I would recommend before they apply for any permits that they at least go in to planning and zoning and work out mitigation for the trees that were removed ‸ and show that.
I mean, it's completely up to the board. We, we do not support that. Uh, that's this contractor worked for months. And avoided our stop work orders and continue to work and actually made it worse over the months. Um, they will need time to get it fixed, but they really need to go see planning and zoning. First thing and find out what they need for the vegetation that was removed and make sure that they come into compliance with everything on the property. Then they can start to build a house or whatever they're
the option that was given either remove the swimming pool in order to, um, account for the handrail that was put in by the swimming pool. We either had to remove the swimming pool and all of the concrete that's there or bring a site plan and a survey. So Mr. House has opted to bring a site plan and a survey to try to move forward.
That's correct. He had bought the property with the intention of selling it to someone else. This other person went in unbeknownst to Mr. House and began doing work on the property. And once he found out, he ceased and desist. The deal has fallen through. The property is up for sale again. And that person is out of the picture.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:53:20–00:53:20 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
was in receipt of our letters as the property owner. The, uh, stop work orders were posted on site. You can see some of them that the contractor saved and stuck on signs all along the roadway, along with a nice billboard, um, to his neighbors about what happened.
Uh, we posted the stop work order immediately in October when we got the complaint and went out there. Uh, we ended up posting, I believe 12 because he kept ripping them down and continuing to work anyway. And we had to keep going out there and telling people to leave and making them leave the property.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:54:38–00:54:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
we, the notice, we have proof that the notice was mailed to the LLC and it was received. The stop work order itself is a sticker that was on the job site.
Okay. And that goes back to October and then work continued beyond that point. Oh, yes. So when Mr. House and his letter says that he was unaware that, uh, this work was going on, uh, is it plausible? Um, I mean, based on the fact that he was appropriately noticed in October that he didn't know that this was going on.
I mean, it's speculation on my part, but, um, the contractor was well notified. The property was well posted what the contractor told Mr. House. I have no idea, but the notice was sent and received and the contractor was fully aware that this was going on and that there was stop work orders.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:55:44–00:55:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:55:55–00:56:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
for the discussion, Mr. Chair. Um, I don't think that 180 days is unreasonable for the idea of getting a site plan approval. Those don't happen overnight. That takes quite some time. Uh,
The permit required and the fence for the fence that can be done virtually overnight. My biggest concern is that for 180 days, we're going to continue to have silt and sod and things running off into the river.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:56:36–00:56:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
site like this and for this kind of work does require a silt fence and any mitigation to keep the runoff to going into the river, whether that's flotation fences at the bottom.
that Mr. House do that immediately because there is a very bad erosion situation happening. So that none of that is there now. No, there was never a silt fence or anything ever put up.
Well, the, you, it's up to you to decide how much time you want to give them. There's not a violation for failure to put up a silt fence. That's, that's not one of the violations that were, that was issued. So.
Right. That's a practice. If they would have obtained the proper permits and done that, that would have been something they did at that time, but they, they haven't done any of that.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:58:02–00:58:02 · 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 · 00:58:23–00:58:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:58:46–00:58:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
do we have latitude because of the egregiousness of this particular, uh, violation with the building permit to increase the fine beyond our, our traditional?
Absolutely. That's part of the criteria would be, um, considering the, uh, the severity of the violation. So yes, you have that ability to increase it up to, up to 500.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:59:56–01:00:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:00:20–01:00:20 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
stop the rest of this. Um, uh, loam and filter and silt and all from coming ‸ down. What are they going to do? Cause we're in a rainy season. What are they going to do to stop that from coming down?
So my, my recommendation would be not to you see, but sod and to put silt fences across the middle of the property to mitigate the top half of the property from flowing down into the river. That would be my recommendation just to stop that portion. Can we put that in the motion?
right when they come to get a permit and it's issued, one of the things that they have to do is put up a silk fence and all that's part of the building process.
but there was other vegetation that was removed. Usually you go get a site plan. They approve all the tree removal and you go from there. In this case, it was just all done ahead of time.
I have, I have a question. So if, if we put into place the, the 10 days just to get the permit, what are we saying as far as actually putting into place, getting the silk fencing out there?
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:03:02–01:03:02 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Absolutely. The building official has full reign over that and he determines everything and he is aware of this particular property. So I'm sure he would take that recommendation to heart and, and move forward with it.
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 01:03:28–01:03:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Based on the evidence, photos, and testimony from Officer Gonzalez and Code Manager Bunt, and the photos that we find that the owner is in violation of permit required, Appendix A, Article 15, Section 2A. In violation of permit required
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:03:40–01:04:03 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:04:03–01:04:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
A, ‸ Article 13, Section 5C, and site plan approval required, Appendix A, Article 13, Section 1B, in that work was commenced without appropriate permitting and without appropriate site plan,
find the owner in violation of the above mentioned violate of codes that we just enumerated, that the owner be given 10 days to apply for the permit, and for both permits, for the fence permit in the building permit, and 180 days to obtain a site plan approval,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:04:52–01:05:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
compliance is achieved, and that the board recommend to the building official that the owner be encouraged to take care of silk fencing and other runoff issues as soon as practical upon issuance of the permit.
how this contractor comes in and does all this work without anybody's permission, and he's free to do all that stuff he can do it to anybody I don't understand that
I have notified the state and it's my understanding that he has some other issues with Army Corps of Engineers that they are going against him as a contractor so as soon as this happened, we reported him to the state because he is a state licensed contractor, so that will be up to the ‸ state to handle that as a contractor. What
with this? He's typically a marine contractor. He builds docks and sea walls and and bridges, and he was in that neighborhood, and he did some work in the neighborhood
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:06:38–01:06:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:06:47–01:06:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:07:19–01:07:19 · 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 · 01:07:39–01:07:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
property during my visits and show my findings of exterior structure, interior structure, extermination, electrical facilities, roof and drainage, protective treatment, and fire protection systems 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 I've attempted to gain voluntary compliance in this case but as of
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:08:30–01:08:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
for 85 days the violations have not been fully resolved I sent the notice of hearing on March 4th 2022 and it was sent certified and posted on the property in
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:08:56–01:09:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:09:05–01:09:10 · 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 · 01:09:11–01:09:23 · 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 · 01:09:37–01:09:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
There is no extermination by the owner, period. So this in fit infestation has run rampant throughout the house. The occupant sprays and puts out traps. ‸ However, we have a we have a serious infestation, which could cause disease and other items. There is no smoke detectors in the house. And under the.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:10:08–01:10:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that's the roof damage. There's damage to the roof. And as you can see, it's really thin. It's just tar paper. um hasn't been fixed in a while. um we see evidence of the leakage by the insulation and stuff that has fallen down on the wet wood. This is part
It's illegally put in. There's actually like an extension cord piece. Around the light switch, um in order to get electricity elsewhere in the house. There's an exposed outlet where the cover is not there. um so all the wires behind that are exposed. um this is the backyard. We had a separate case. For the items that are out there, but you can see where they have. Propped up the, the overhang with new lumber. um there's leakage there and there's wires that run along the top of the soffit This is inside the house. um that's part of the interior structure. It's a trip hazard. The floor is not maintained. um you can see where they filled in other things with, uh foam. You spray it in and it foams up, uh holes into the foundation. um This is
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:11:56–01:11:56 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:12:46–01:12:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:13:08–01:13:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
There's raw wood in the back of the property that has no protective treatment over it. And then in the front, the overhang up above there, the paint is all bubbled and peeling off the board. Let's see if I got a better photo for you of that.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:14:17–01:14:18 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
is out of the country on vacation. um He did leave a letter, which I wasn't aware that I should have uh printed it out and given to so I'll just make this short. I am the owner of
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:14:32–01:14:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
for delay but because it is everything takes more time than we would wish including 30 days or so to obtain work permits and also time to locate a contractor and subcontractors willing to undertake the repairs with a tenant in occupancy. So I have asked
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:15:44–01:15:44 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
which he is working on. So I do everybody on the property is licensed everything is being handled through his workers. So he's hiring out whoever needs to be fixed whatever is necessary to get this taken care of ‸ as quick as possible.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:16:16–01:16:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
well, he would need a roof permit. I don't know how bad the plumbing is. I don't know if it can be a snaked out thing. I don't know if he has other issues
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:16:59–01:17:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
require a permit. uh ‸ roof permit is easily obtained within easily 30 days. The electric and the plumbing, depending on what they're going to have to do, I don't know if there's cast iron piping under there or what the case may be. um That might take a little bit more time. uh
It needs to be performed by a licensed contractor. You can't have a handyman or do it yourself because it's a rental unit. So it's looked upon as needing a licensed contractor.
Okay. So ifif you've got these contractors all lined up and we give uh them a certain number of days to get those permits, that fixes things for us and for you really because it puts them on the spot to do it and they have to, they have to pull permits or they can't work.
Well, ‸ looks, look it sounds to me like this is kind of uh another situation where we should set a number of days to get the permit and, um and then possibly have a, different number of days to accomplish the mission. And we don't know what
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:18:56–01:19:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:19:09–01:19:12 · 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 · 01:19:12–01:19:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
understanding? He chose to file an eviction. He was going to do an eviction. um however, we explained to him that even within eviction, these items needed to be corrected. I'm not sure where that ended up.
Then he sent somebody out there who started doing work and officer Gonzalez had to issue stop work orders because they were on licensed contractors. um and then
But but I mean now for the urgency for the property owner to get this done oh yes it's the property owner's own own doing because the property owner has been aware of this for going on three months and is just now starting to take the initial steps towards correcting?
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:21:13–01:21:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:21:51–01:21:52 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Well, Mr. chair, as I explained to Mr. Vaughn. And under the business tax receipts for um residential, she does have a business tax receipt. The fact that the truck is the food vending trailer is parked. There is not a violation of code. And under the new house bill, they are allowed to have. Equipment and stuff related to their business. ‸ Her issue was she was serving food at the property, but that has since been complied with. That's why we never brought it to the board. and we cited her for that. So, yeah, she still has a truck there,
uh based on testimony from Officer Gonzalez and from Code Manager Bunt, and the testimony from the property owner's representative and the letter submitted by the property owner, that after reviewing the photos and the testimony, we have concluded that exterior structure, section 6 1003 a is in violation because of the uh bracing that is needed for the overhang. Extermination, section
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:23:54–01:23:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:24:00–01:24:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:24:26–01:24:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:24:35–01:24:40 · 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 · 01:24:47–01:24:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:25:09–01:25:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
within 10 days and being given, shall we say, 60 days to complete the work. Does that sound right, Mr. Manager? All work to be completed with 60 days with 30 day updates being provided to the code officer and evidence of permits having been received within 10 days.
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:25:21–01:25:47 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:25:49–01:25:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
but we came back every 30 days and said this is what's transpired there's been no change there has been changed and it's just it's just a brief update.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:26:40–01:26:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:27:01–01:27:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:27:02–01:27:06 · 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 · 01:27:38–01:27:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:27:55–01:27:55 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
the property. The accuratelyto‸ the property during my visits. The case was brought to the code board on January 21st, 2022, and was found in violation of accessory structures and protective treatment. The compliance date was that was given was February 20th, 2022. I sent the notice of hearing for non-compliance on March 4th, 2022, and it was sent certified and posted. At this time, the property remains in violation.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:28:25–01:28:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:28:36–01:28:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:28:50–01:28:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:29:22–01:29:25 · 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 · 01:29:31–01:29:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
May 16, 2019, at which time the Board found the owner housing for homeless, Inc. in violation of the following. Roofs and drainage, maintenance of interior structure, and insect screens.
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:29:40–01:29:52 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:29:52–01:29:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:30:02–01:30:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:30:12–01:30:16 · 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 · 01:30:19–01:30:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the current owner housing for homeless inc is requesting that the lien be reduced to 600 and city cost of service staff utilized the following factors in making recommendations to reduce the lien whether the current owner owned the property at the time of violations occurred yes applicant resides of the property no property is a rental housing the number of violations related to the subject lien three number of inspections performed eight the length of the time the property was in violation 368 days property taxes no outstanding tax bills other liens records show no outstanding liens on the property no water liens property inspection march 16 2022 and was in in compliance before code board hearing an inspection will occur prior to the council meeting. ‸ The market value of the subject property.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:31:23–01:31:30 · 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 · 01:31:32–01:31:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
969.77 which is the cost of staff to prosecute the case this production based on the gravity of the violations, the length of time it took to the property to come into compliance, and the total amount of the city's cost. And
Mr. Chair, just for the record, um the two violations for the maintenance of the interior structure and the insect screens were corrected in a timely manner. uh The biggest problem was
needing a roof. And so that took a little bit of time for them to actually get a contractor and go their non-profit organization. So they have to get their quotes and everything, and that just took a little bit of time to get the permit finaled and the roof done. um And
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:32:40–01:32:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
um I am here on behalf of housing for homeless, which is in Rockledge, and it is a property that we own. And I want to thank you for the work at Dennis bringing that to our attention.
um And I am uh truly sorry. We were very sad to hear about Mr. Murdoch. we had He had been working with us on this for some time. And um so i want to I appreciate you all getting this in front of the board so quickly, um considering it was just brought to our attention in November. um but, um it was, as he mentioned,
uh with the, um we had actually, um made the decision to replace the roof before the liens started accruing on the property. um because it takes a little time for us to get those quotes and
on October. I'm sorry, August 1st and, um went with the one company that had given us a quote. um Then I think the 9th, August 9th, I believe it was, they came out and tarped the roof so that there was no further damage, no um more leaking, nothing that even, because our guys had gone out there at least four times prior to that to do patches and it just was not going to be sufficient. So, um at that point, I think it was the 22nd or 23rd of August when
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:34:37–01:34:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
after that, they were just waiting on a piece of paper from the engineer to sign off on it. So the work actually was completed at the end of October the prior year, but it wasn't signed off by the city by the permit until that following March because of a piece of paper that was missing that we were not aware of.
Okay. ‸ Well, first, let me say, uh thank you to you for providing some housing, at least for homeless people is not a large need for that. um more need than there is housing. ‸ I think. Yes, sir. the,
recommendation of the board is a recommendation to city council. So ‸ this will be heard again, uh by city council. but we will make them. We will make a, uh determination. ‸ somewhere I, in your presentation, officer Gonzalez, you said something about
We're not even looking for the 600. uh what we do like to, we do like to let the city recoup. its uh ‸ actual expense. So I'll take ‸ a uh motion to recommend to council that, that the fine be reduced to
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:36:28–01:36:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:37:02–01:37:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
you. Motion on ‸ floor with a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. aye Any opposed? There are none. the Motion passed. And as I said, you will get notice from the secretary when the uh item is going to come before the council. You're of course welcome to come before council if you wish. uh and they will get our recommendation. Thank
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:37:27–01:37:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:37:43–01:37:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:37:54–01:37:56 · 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 · 01:37:55–01:37:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
uh we conducted interviews on February 9th and they've made it through. The HR process and all that they have to go through. So they will be starting on, uh
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:38:11–01:38:16 · 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 · 01:38:16–01:38:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:38:36–01:38:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:38:44–01:38:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
excellent work. He has come a long way. He's relatively new. um and he's really stepped up to the plate during this time with our division. So, um he's done an excellent job.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:39:20–01:39:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording