[00:00:01]
          10:00. AND I GUESS THIS IS THE SPECIAL SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING FOR THE VILLAGE OF 
          [1.  November 2024 Docket
]
INDIAN TOWN FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19TH, 2024. NOW, COME TO ORDER. AND I GIVE IT OVER TO THE VILLAGE AND ITS EMPLOYEES. TO PRESENT ANY MATTERS BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE THIS MORNING. 
          SWEARING IN PERSON. I'M SORRY. OKAY. WELL, WE'LL SWEAR. WE'LL SWEAR. AND YOU? YOU ARE GOING TO PRESENT A CASE. THAT'S RIGHT. SO I HAVE A LITTLE SPEECH THAT I KIND OF PUT TOGETHER, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND PUT IT OUT. GOOD MORNING. OF COURSE, TODAY IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST. NOVEMBER 19TH, 2024. THIS CODE COMPLIANCE HEARING IS CALLED PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 162 FLORIDA STATUTES. 
          MY NAME IS KEITH WILLIAMS AND I AM THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPOINTED BY THE CITY OF OR. I'M SORRY, THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN TOWN TO ACT AS AN IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER FOR THE VILLAGES CODE COMPLIANCE CASES. AS THERE IS NO ONE HERE TODAY, I'M NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THE AUDIENCE AND LET THEM KNOW IF THEY'VE BEEN REGARDED WITH A CODE VIOLATION. BUT JUST TO PUT ON THE RECORD THE CITY. THE CITY PRESENTS ITS CASE INITIALLY. ANYONE CAN RESPOND, CROSS-EXAMINE. HAVE WITNESSES. AND ONCE THE CITY HAS PRESENTED THAT CASE, ANYONE WHO'S OPPOSING THAT OR WHO WISHES TO PARTICIPATE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW EVIDENCE, CROSS-EXAMINE ANY WITNESSES, AND THE LIKE. ALL TESTIMONY IS REQUIRED TO BE UNDER OATH AND WE'LL AND WE WILL BE SWEARING IN THE MEMBERS OF THE OF THE VILLAGE STAFF WHO ARE GOING TO PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR THIS TRIBUNAL. THE VILLAGE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING ITS CASE IN THIS MATTER BY PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. AND ONCE ALL THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY HAS BEEN PRESENTED, I'LL MAKE AN ORAL RULING AND THEN THAT ORAL RULING WILL BE REDUCED TO A WRITTEN DOCUMENT THAT I'LL THEN BE FILING WITH THE WITH THE VILLAGE CLERK. ALL RIGHT. SO FOR THE VILLAGE, THIS MORNING, WHO IS GOING TO BE PROVIDING TESTIMONY? JUST YOU, MR. RAMIREZ. YES, SIR. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO, MR. RAMIREZ, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT ANY OF THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE THIS MORNING WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND WITH THAT, WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE CASES THAT YOU HAVE FOR US THIS MORNING. ALL RIGHT. SO THE FIRST CASE THAT I'M GOING TO BE PRESENTING WOULD BE 24 179. IT'S IN IT'S IN REFERENCE TO A PROPERTY AT 14547 SOUTHWEST SANDY OAKS LOOP. AGAIN, MY NAME IS STEVEN ALONZO RAMIREZ FOR THE RECORD, FOR THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN TOWN. THIS CASE WAS INITIATED PROACTIVELY UPON MY DISCOVERY ON OCTOBER 17TH, 2024. THE RESPONDENT IS PEREZ CRISTOBAL AND PEREZ RABELO RIBEIRO ISLES, WHO IS NOT PRESENT. THIS CASE IS CONCERNING THE PROPERTY AT 14547 SOUTHWEST SANDY OAKS LOOP, INDIANTOWN, FLORIDA. ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE MARTIN COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS PEREZ CRISTOBAL PEREZ RAVELO. ISLES. THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S RECORDS OF OWNERSHIP IS MARKED BEFORE YOU AS VILLAGE EXHIBIT ONE. ON OCTOBER 17TH, 2024, I INSPECTED THE PROPERTY AND AT THE TIME I OBSERVED THE FOLLOWING CODE VIOLATIONS. SECTION 115.4 OBSTRUCTION. SIDEWALK AND BICYCLE PATH. SECTION 1217 PERMITS. SECTION 34. 11 PARKING, LOADING AND DRIVEWAYS. AT THE TIME I PHOTOGRAPHED THE PROPERTY'S. THE PHOTOGRAPHS ACTUALLY SHOW WHAT I SAW THEN AND ARE MARKED AS VILLAGE EXHIBITS. TWO. BASED UPON MY INVESTIGATION, I ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE RESPONDENT ON OCTOBER 17TH, 2024 FOR THE HEARING OF NOVEMBER 19TH, WHICH IS MARKED AS VILLAGE EXHIBIT THREE. IN THE NOTICE, I CITED THE VILLAGE CODE VIOLATIONS CITED EARLIER IN MY TESTIMONY. IN THE NOTICE, THE RESPONDENT WAS GIVEN UNTIL NOVEMBER 1ST, 2024 TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION AND WAS INFORMED OF THE NEED TO CONTACT THE VILLAGE CODE ENFORCEMENT. UPON DOING SO. THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE RESPONDENT CERTIFIED MAIL AND BY POSTING OF THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH THE POSTING AT VILLAGE HALL. THE MAIL RECEIPT IS MARKED BEFORE YOU AS EXHIBIT FOUR. AND A RETURN RECEIPT WAS NOT RECEIVED. ACTUALLY, NO. A 
          [00:05:01]
RETURN RECEIPT WAS RECEIVED OCTOBER 25TH. A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTING IS ALSO MARKED BEFORE YOU AS VILLAGE EXHIBIT FIVE. ALSO WITH MY AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE MARKED FOR YOU AS VILLAGE EXHIBIT NUMBER SIX. NO CALL, EMAIL OR LETTER FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS BEEN RECEIVED WITHIN THE TIME ALLOTTED. ON NOVEMBER 18TH, I DID A FOLLOW UP INSPECTION AND FOUND NO CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY. AT THIS TIME, I REQUEST THAT ALL VILLAGE EXHIBITS BE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE. ALL RIGHT. BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY WITH REGARD TO YOUR PERSONAL OBSERVATION AND YOUR YOUR PHYSICAL PRESENCE AT THE PROPERTY, I'M GOING TO ACCEPT THESE EXHIBITS INTO EVIDENCE. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, THOUGH. YES. WITH REGARD TO THE VIOLATION OF SECTION ONE 15.4, IN THE PHOTO. I'M I'M SEEING A PHOTO THAT LOOKS AS IF THERE THERE IS SOME SORT OF A GRAVEL DRIVEWAY THAT THAT IS BISECTED BY THE SIDEWALK. I'M I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHAT THE OBSTRUCTION IS HERE. SO AT THE TIME, THERE WAS A CAR PARKED THERE WHEN I WENT TO GO TAKE THE PHOTO. HE MOVED, BUT THEN IT STOPPED TO ASK ME WHAT I WAS DOING. THERE'S BEEN A CAR PARKED THERE PERIODICALLY AT DIFFERENT TIMES, BUT AT EACH DIFFERENT TIME I GO, SOMEONE COMES OUT AND MOVES THE CAR. SO FOR ME, I PUT THAT BECAUSE I WANTED TO ADD IT IN TO THE FINAL ORDER THAT I WANT TO BE IMPOSED ON THE PROPERTY FOR THEM TO STOP PARKING ON THE SIDEWALK. OKAY, SO THERE'S AN ORDINANCE AGAINST PARKING ON THE SIDEWALK? YES. OKAY. IS IT IS IT ANY PARKING OR IS THERE IS THERE A TIME ASSOCIATED A TIME PERIOD ASSOCIATED WITH THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE SIDEWALK THERE? IT'S ANY TIME CANNOT BE PARKED ON THE SIDEWALK. OKAY. AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE VIOLATION OF SECTION 12 DASH 17 PERMITS. WHERE, WHERE IN THIS PHOTO WITH THAT VIOLATION BE SO HE'S BASICALLY MAKING A MAKESHIFT DRIVEWAY AND HE'S DOING IT ON TO THE RIGHT OF WAY. IF HE'S GOING TO DO ANY CHANGES ON TO THE RIGHT OF WAY, HE WOULD NEED ANY PERMITS. ALL RIGHT. SO THE PORTION OF THE PHOTO THAT I'M SEEING IN EXHIBIT TWO THAT APPEARS TO HAVE GRAVEL FROM WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE ROADWAY TO THE SIDEWALK AND THEN SOME GRAVEL BEYOND THE SIDEWALK. 
          THE OWNER NEEDS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THAT. THAT WORK? ALL RIGHT. IS THE CITY GOING TO REMEDIATE THAT WORK AT ALL, OR IS THERE ANY PLAN TO EITHER REMEDIATE THE RIGHT OF WAY TO GRASS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NOT NOT AT THIS TIME I HAVEN'T SPOKEN. DOES THIS STRUCTURE HAVE ANOTHER ACCESS OR DRIVEWAY POINT THAT'S NOT IN THE PHOTO HERE? IT HAS IT HAS A DRIVEWAY, A REGULAR DRIVEWAY JUST GOING UP TO THE GARAGE. THERE'S NO FENCE SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY. OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO AND THEN THE PARKING AND LOADING OF LOADING AND DRIVEWAYS THAT VIOLATION. 
          HOW IS THAT? HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS TWO VIOLATIONS? SO I, I TAGGED IT IN WITH HIM BASICALLY MAKING A DRIVEWAY BECAUSE HE'S HE'S GOING TO CONTINUE IT TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK. OKAY. SO IT'S JUST BASICALLY ALSO OBTAINING A PERMIT FOR THE DRIVEWAY. HE'S MAKING A MAKESHIFT DRIVEWAY. OKAY. SO THIS PROPERTY DOES DOES THIS PROPERTY HAVE A DRIVEWAY AT ALL OR. NO. YES, IT DOES HAVE IT DOES HAVE A REGULAR DRIVEWAY. OKAY. THAT'S NOT SHOWN IN THE PHOTO HERE. NO. OKAY. BUT I JUST ONLY TOOK A PHOTO OF THE VIOLATION OF THE VIOLATION. 
          OKAY. SO THIS PROPERTY DOES HAVE ANOTHER DRY. THAT'S MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS WAS ALWAYS HAS BEEN THE DRIVEWAY FOR THE PROPERTY. OKAY. AND THERE'S ANOTHER DRIVEWAY THAT THE PROPERTY THAT WAS BUILT THAT WAS AUTHORIZED, THAT WAS PERMITTED. THIS IS SIMPLY A SEPARATE DRIVEWAY. THIS IS A SEPARATE DRIVEWAY TO THE TO THE PROPERTY. YES. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO BE CLEAR ABOUT. 
          OKAY. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS THIS OWNER HAS ACCESS TO THAT PROPERTY. YES. ALL RIGHT. 
          SO WHAT'S THE VILLAGE'S RECOMMENDATION? SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE WANT HIM TO COMPLY AT LEAST BY DECEMBER 14TH. IF NOT IN COMPLIANCE BY THEN, TO BE REQUIRED TO PAY A FINE OF $100 PER VIOLATION A DAY. THEREFORE, AFTER ALSO, THE VILLAGE HAS 
          [00:10:01]
INCURRED A REASONABLE ADMINISTRATIVE COST AND THE AMOUNT OF $150 CONDUCTING THIS INVESTIGATION, AND I REQUEST THAT THE VILLAGE BE REIMBURSED THIS AMOUNT AT THE CONCLUSION OF TODAY'S HEARING. ALL RIGHT. BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED AS YOUR EXHIBITS AND THE EVIDENCE THAT'S IN THE RECORD, HAVE YOU EVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH THE OWNER? WE WENT TO GO POST ON THE PROPERTY. DOOR WAS KNOCKED ON AND NOBODY'S ANSWERED THE DOOR. 
          THE DAY OF. NOBODY KNOCKED ON THE DOOR EITHER. I AT THE TIME. WITH THAT VEHICLE BEING PARKED ON THE SIDEWALK, SOMEONE CAME OUT, GOT IN THE CAR AND JUST LEFT. DIDN'T EVEN SAY ANYTHING. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS JUST SOMEBODY THAT WAS LIVING IN THERE, A TENANT. I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS THE OWNER. OKAY. AND CAN YOU, BASED ON EXHIBIT TWO, WHERE WAS THE WAS IT PARKED? WHERE WAS WHERE WAS THE VEHICLE PARKED? RIGHT, RIGHT IN FRONT. DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. OKAY. ON THE SIDEWALK, NEXT TO THE GRAVEL, NEXT TO THE GRAVEL. SO IT WAS PARKED. WAS IT PARKED PERPENDICULAR TO THE STREET OR PARKED PARALLEL TO THE STREET? WAS IT PARKED THIS WAY OR THIS WAY? IT WAS JUST PARKED SIDEWAYS ON. OKAY. SO IT WAS BLOCKING THE WHOLE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE. 
          IN FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE? YES. OKAY. SO IT WASN'T PARKED ON THIS GRAVEL PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY. IT WAS PARKED IN ANOTHER LOCATION. IT WAS PARKED DIRECTLY ON THE SIDEWALK RIGHT IN FRONT. OKAY. COVERING THE WHOLE SIDEWALK. ALL RIGHT. AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S A COMMON OCCURRENCE IN THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS THE FIRST VIOLATION FOR THIS OWNER. IT'S THE FIRST ACTUAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION ISSUED TO HIM. HE HAS BEEN GIVEN COURTESY NOTICES BEFORE IN THE PAST, FOR OTHER THINGS WHICH HE HAS COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME ACTUALLY ISSUING A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO HIM. GOTCHA. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT THE VILLAGE HAS PRESENTED AND BASED ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE VILLAGE CODE OFFICER, I'M GOING TO GRANT THE VILLAGE'S REQUEST WITH REGARD TO. HAVING THE PROPERTY COME INTO COMPLIANCE BY NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 19TH, 14TH, 14TH. OKAY. SO LESS THAN 30 DAYS. OH, YES. 
          YEAH. OKAY. SO IT WAS. IT WAS BEFORE NEXT MAGISTRATE. SO THE NEXT MAGISTRATE IS THE 17TH. I WAS TRYING TO DO IT FOR THAT FRIDAY. OKAY. SO THE 14TH, WHICH IS THE THREE DAYS BEFORE THE NEXT MAGISTRATE'S HEARING. YES. OKAY. SO IT'S NOT QUITE 30 DAYS, BUT 25 DAYS. YES. THAT SOUNDS LIKE. OKAY. AND THEN OTHERWISE, THE VIOLATION WOULD ISSUE AT $100 PER VIOLATION PER DAY. YES. 
          AND ARE YOU COUNTING THIS AS ONE VIOLATION OR THREE? AT THE TIME, I WAS COUNTING IT AS THREE. 
          OKAY. SO IF THERE'S IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY. BECAUSE WHAT I'M SEEING HERE IS I'M SEEING ONE ACTIVITY. THERE WAS ONE ACTIVITY THAT WAS A LITTLE SEPARATE. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S MORE OF A FOCUS ON THE UNPERMITTED DRIVEWAY STRUCTURE. AND USING THE DRIVEWAY, USING THAT UNPERMITTED STRUCTURE IN A WAY THAT THAT BLOCKS THE USE OF THE SIDEWALK. THE OTHER PARKING ISSUE DIDN'T SOUND AS IF THAT WAS A NORMAL TYPE OF AN OCCURRENCE. WITH THE STRUCTURE IN RELATION TO THE UNPERMITTED DRIVEWAY HERE. THE OTHER ONE, YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS IT SOUNDS LIKE THE OTHER ONE. IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOME A PIZZA GUY DRIVING UP AND PARKING THERE FOR A SECOND. SO IT'S BEEN A REOCCURRING THING AND I'VE LEFT COURTESY NOTICES ON THERE BEFORE. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHY PARKING IN FRONT OF THE DOOR AND BLOCKING THE WHOLE SIDEWALK IS ALSO REOCCURRING AS WELL. IT'S A REOCCURRING THING JUST AT THAT MOMENT, I WASN'T ABLE TO TAKE A PICTURE. AND WHEN I WENT TO GO DO THE POSTING, THE CAR AGAIN LEFT. NORMALLY THE DRIVEWAY IS FILLED WITH VEHICLES, SO THEY HAVE A LOT MORE VEHICLES THAN CAN FIT IN THEIR DRIVEWAY. SO THEY TEND TO PARK IN THAT RIGHT OF WAY, BUT THEY USUALLY END UP PARKING RIGHT ON THE SIDEWALK, 
          [00:15:02]
COVERING THE SIDEWALK INSTEAD OF JUST TRYING TO PARK ONLY WITHIN THE GRASS. GOTCHA. GOTCHA. IF THEY'RE NOT ON THE SIDEWALK, BUT THEY'RE IN THE GRASS WAY. THAT'S BETWEEN THE. RIGHT. BETWEEN THE ROADWAY AND THE SIDEWALK. HOW DO HOW DOES THIS HOW DOES THE VILLAGE VIEW THAT? NORMALLY, WE REALLY DON'T WANT PEOPLE PARKING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. JUST BECAUSE IT DAMAGES THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND THAT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE WAY WATER FLOWS. SO WE KIND OF WANT PEOPLE TO NOT PARK ON THE RIGHT OF WAY MORE ON THEIR DRIVEWAY. BUT IT'S DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT HERE WITHIN THE VILLAGE DO THEY WRITE TICKETS FOR THAT TYPE OF ACTIVITY? I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DO. NO. OKAY. WELL, I'M JUST WHAT I WE'RE TRYING TO GET COMPLIANCE, SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE MECHANISMS THAT THE VILLAGE IS USING TO GET PEOPLE TO AVOID PARKING IN THE SWALE. THE RIGHT OF WAY ON THE SIDEWALK. APART FROM MEETING A DRIVEWAY WHERE YOU CAN PARK THESE THINGS. ALL RIGHT, SO I'M GOING TO ENTER THE ENTER AN ORDER FOR COMPLIANCE BY BY DECEMBER 14TH, $100 VIOLATION PER DAY. $150 VIOLATION. REIMBURSEMENT FOR VILLAGE. THE COST OF VILLAGE ENFORCEMENT AND WOULD THAT REIMBURSEMENT BE WAIVABLE IF THEY CAME INTO COMPLIANCE? NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. OKAY, SO THAT'S MY ORAL ORDER IN THAT WE'RE GRANTING THAT WE'RE GOING TO GRANT THAT MOTION BY THE BY THE VILLAGE. I'LL REDUCE THAT TO A WRITING, AND I'LL SEND THAT BACK TO YOU. AND THAT WAY YOU'LL HAVE A WRITTEN COPY OF THAT, BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT MAY GET LOST. EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE A RECORD HERE. WE'RE RECORDING THIS. I STILL NEED TO HAVE DOCUMENTATION WITH THE VILLAGE CLERK AND THEN FILE IT TO THE VILLAGE RECORD, BE PART OF THE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS OF THE VILLAGE AND THE TOWN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT WAS. I'M SORRY, CASE NUMBER. THAT WAS CASE NUMBER 24. DASH 179. ALL RIGHT, SO FOR THE REST OF THE AGENDA, THAT SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY ONE THAT HAD A HEARING. EVERYTHING ELSE IS EITHER COMPLIED OR CONTINUED. SO THERE IS FOR THE SPECIAL CASE 20 4-025. OKAY. THAT ONE. IT DID COME INTO COMPLIANCE, BUT I WANT TO PRESENT THE CASE AND GET A DO NOT REPEAT ORDER. OKAY. ON THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU. 20 4-1 91 IS ALSO A CASE THAT I WANTED TO GET A CONTINUANCE ORDER ON. 
          OKAY. SO LET'S LET'S FINISH UP. WE'RE FINISHED UP WITH 24 179. LET'S NOW GIVE THE PRESENTATION FOR CASE NUMBER 24 191. YES. ALL RIGHT. SO MR. RAMIREZ, PLEASE PROCEED. OKAY. SO. AGAIN. 
          STEVEN. ALONSO. RAMIREZ FOR THE VILLAGE. SO THIS CASE IS A CASE THAT WAS INITIATED KIND OF ON A COMPLAINT. ALSO PROACTIVELY ON FOR AN UNSAFE STRUCTURE. THERE IS A. SO I HAVE PHOTOS HERE IN MY CASE, NORMALLY I JUST ASK FOR THE CONTINUANCE. AND I WOULD NEVER HAVE TO PRESENT ANYTHING. 
          BUT I COULD GIVE YOU THESE. SO THAT WAY YOU CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT THE CASE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET YOU SOME, YOU KNOW, GET YOU A LITTLE MORE EXPERIENCE DOING THAT SO THAT WE COULD PROVIDE, PROVIDE ME WITH THE INFORMATION THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE. I KNOW YOU'RE REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE. IS THIS YOU'RE SAYING IT'S AN UNSAFE STRUCTURE. SO MAYBE IF WE COULD HAVE SOME, SOME EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AS TO WHERE THE STRUCTURE IS NOW, SO THAT IN THE EVENT, AS THIS CASE IS CONTINUED, IF IT FOR SOME REASON HAS TO COME BACK UP, THEN WE HAVE A RECORD BEFORE US THAT WE CAN START TO WORK FROM. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND ARE YOU FIRST, I'D LIKE TO YOU TO GIVE SOME TESTIMONY ON WHAT KIND OF CASE THIS IS. AND WHAT THE FACTS ARE, AND THEN THAT WAY YOU 
          [00:20:03]
CAN BRING IN THIS EVIDENCE THROUGH THAT TESTIMONY. SO THIS CASE HAS TO DO WITH AN UNSAFE STRUCTURE, WHICH IS A DECK BEHIND A MOBILE HOME. THAT'S IN INDIAN WOOD. THE DECK WAS BUILT BACK IN 2000, 18 AROUND THERE PER SE. AND IT WAS NOT PERMITTED. THE OWNER, JOHN AMBROSE OF THE MOBILE HOME, SAYS THAT HE PULLED THE PERMIT FOR THIS DECK BACK IN 2006. UPON RESEARCHING, WE FOUND THAT HE DID PULL PERMITS, BUT ONLY FOR A CONCRETE SLAB. BUT NO PERMITS FOR THIS DECK. OKAY. SO THE DECK THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED WAS DIDN'T MATCH WHATEVER PLANS HAD BEEN PERMITTED PREVIOUSLY IN OH SIX. SO THE PLANS WERE ONLY FOR A CONCRETE SLAB THAT HE HAD RIGHT, RIGHT BEHIND THE CARPORT. OKAY. AND THE DECK EXCEEDS MORE FURTHER BACK ONTO THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE WATER TO THE CANAL THAT THEY HAVE IN THE BACK. OKAY. SO BASICALLY THERE WAS IS THIS A DOCK STRUCTURE? YES. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE. 
          HAVE YOU DISCUSSED WITH THE LANDOWNER WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE GOTTEN ANY PERMITS FROM THE CANAL OWNER, FROM ANY. THEY HAVE NO PERMITS. THEY HAVE NO PERMITS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT DOCK ON THAT LAND. NO PERMITS. SO NO AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF SOVEREIGNTY, LAND OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NO. OKAY. SO ARE THE. HAS THE VILLAGE WORKED? HAS THE VILLAGE WORKED WITH EITHER THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT OR FLORIDA MARINE PATROL? OR FISH AND WILDLIFE? I'M SORRY. TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S EVEN A WHETHER OR NOT A DOCK STRUCTURE LIKE HE'S BUILT IS EVEN ALLOWED IN THAT WATERWAY. NO. OKAY. SO EVERYTHING'S UNPERMITTED. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SIMILAR TYPE DOCK STRUCTURES ON THAT WATERWAY? I HAVE SEEN NO, THEY HAVE SIMILAR. KIND OF LIKE PORCHES. BUT HE'S ALSO EXCEEDING THE 100 FOOT MARK OF HIS LAND GOING BACK ALL THE OTHER ONES ARE WITHIN LINE AND WITHIN IT. WITHIN THE EASEMENT FOR THE TOP OF CANAL BANK. SO HE'S OVER THE TOP OF THE CANAL BANK INTO THE CANAL? YES. GOTCHA. ALL RIGHT. AND YOU'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE OWNER. YES. SO THE CONTINUANCE IS TO ALLOW THE OWNER TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND REMOVE ALL THAT. ALL THOSE STRUCTURES. YES. OKAY. DOES THE OWNER APPEAR? DOES IT APPEAR THAT THE OWNER IS GOING TO WORK WITH YOU TO DO THAT? WE HAVE SPOKEN WITH. SO THE OWNER IS ALSO. HE'S 88 YEARS OLD. OKAY. HE'S ELDERLY. WE HAVE SPOKEN WITH HIS DAUGHTER. WHICH? SHE HAS SPOKEN WITH HER BROTHER. AND THEY'RE TRYING TO COME UP, TRYING TO COME DOWN TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE THE DOCK AND HAVE THE PROPERTY COME INTO COMPLIANCE. OKAY. DID HE INSTALL THIS HIMSELF OR DID HE HAVE SOMEBODY DO IT FOR HIM? FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, HE INSTALLED THIS HIMSELF. SO. OKAY. SO. AND. IS THE. IS THE VILLAGE LOOKING TO HAVE HIM SIMPLY REMOVED? THE STRUCTURE BACK TO THE 100 FOOT SLAB? OR DO YOU WANT HIM TO COME IN FOR PERMITTING EVERYTHING AGAIN? NO, WE JUST WANT HIM TO REMOVE IT. OKAY. YOU JUST WANT HIM TO REMOVE THE DECKING STRUCTURE. THE DECKING STRUCTURE ALSO IN THE PICTURES THERE BEFORE YOU, YOU COULD SEE THAT ON THE DECKING ITSELF, IT'S UNSAFE. THE CONCRETE SLABS OVER ARE CRACKED AND BASICALLY FALLING WITHIN ITSELF ON THAT DECK. OKAY. WHICH PART OF THIS PHOTO THAT YOU'RE SHOWING ME? BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AND I SEE PART THAT LOOKS LIKE SOME SORT OF A CONCRETE SLAB, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CONCRETE SLAB THAT WAS PERMITTED ON SIX. NO, NONE OF THAT WAS PERMITTED IN OH SIX, SO. OKAY. I DIDN'T TAKE A PICTURE OF THE CONCRETE SLAB THAT WAS PERMITTED. I WAS ONLY TAKING PICTURES OF THE VIOLATION ITSELF. GOTCHA. SO THESE DON'T CONTAIN ANY PHOTOS OF WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED BACK IN OH SIX? NO. AND SO ALL OF THIS NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALL OF THIS IS RECENT OR NEWER CONSTRUCTION THAT WAS THAT EXCEEDS THE AREA OF THE PERMIT, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PERMIT? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AS FAR AS AN UNSAFE STRUCTURE IS THE VILLAGE, DOES THE VILLAGE FEEL ANY NEED TO GO OUT AND SECURE THAT THAT STRUCTURE FROM ANY USE 
          [00:25:03]
WHATSOEVER? OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE USED UNTIL IT GETS FIXED? IT CANNOT BE USED. IT SHOULD NOT. HAVE ANYBODY GOING ON TO THAT STRUCTURE THE WAY AS IT SITS. ALL RIGHT. IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE LANDOWNER, HAVE THEY GIVEN YOU A TIMETABLE OR A PLAN FOR REMOVAL AT ALL AT THE TIME? NO, I'M TRYING TO GET A CONTINUANCE FOR AT LEAST 90 DAYS TO SEE IF THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TIME FOR THEM TO REMOVE THAT DECKING. OKAY, SO YOU'RE LOOKING FOR 90 DAY CONTINUANCE ON THIS ONE. YES. OKAY. AND IN THAT 90 DAYS, DO YOU THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY WORK TOWARDS IT OR WOULD A SHORTER TIME BE BETTER TO GET THEM TO MOVE FORWARD ON. I THINK WITHIN THE 90 DAYS THEY SHOULD THEY SHOULD BE WORKING TOWARDS GETTING ALL THAT REMOVED. OKAY. 
          AND I REALIZE THE HOMEOWNERS IS AN OLDER GENTLEMAN, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, TWO MONTHS AROUND CHRISTMAS WITH TOO MANY PEOPLE WALKING ON SOMETHING UNSAFE MIGHT, YOU KNOW, JUST HOLIDAYS, PEOPLE COME VISIT, THAT KIND OF THING. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO BALANCE THAT WITH THE REQUEST FOR THE 90 DAY CONTINUANCE. AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT STEPS WERE BEING TAKEN TO START RECTIFYING THE PROBLEM. AS OPPOSED TO THEM WAITING 90 DAYS AND THEN COMING IN ON THE 89TH DAY AND SAYING, HEY, CAN YOU GIVE US ANOTHER CONTINUANCE? THAT'S ALL. OKAY. 
          AT THIS POINT, BASED ON THE TESTIMONY, I'M GOING TO ACCEPT THESE PHOTOS IN THE EVIDENCE AS COMPOSITE EXHIBIT ONE FOR CASE NUMBER 24, DASH 191. AND THESE ARE THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE THAT WERE TAKEN BY MR. RAMIREZ ON THEY HAVE THE DATE ON THEM OF NOVEMBER 1ST, 2024. AND THEY REPRESENT THEIR PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BACK DECKING AREA THAT WAS INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT AT 16516352 SOUTH-WEST INDIAN WOOD CIRCLE. AND THERE ARE FOUR PHOTOS HERE SHOWING APPEARS TO SHOW A CONCRETE SLAB THAT WAS NOT THE ONE THAT WAS PERMITTED. SOME WOODEN DECKING. SOME STAIRS LEADING DOWN TO WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE CANAL BEHIND THE STRUCTURE. AND IN THESE PHOTOS, CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHERE DO ANY OF THESE PHOTOS IDENTIFY WHERE THE TOP OF THE BANK FOR THE CANAL MIGHT BE, SO THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY IDENTIFY WITHIN ONE OF THE PHOTOS WHERE THE ACTUAL LINE IS FOR? YOU KNOW, HE HASN'T REMOVED THE WHOLE THING, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO IDENTIFY WHERE THE LINE IS FOR ENCROACHMENT ON ANY OTHER, ANY SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHT OF WAY. I'M LOOKING NOW AT THE PHOTO THAT APPEARS TO SHOW THE STAIRS LEADING DOWN INTO THE CANAL, AND I THINK ALL OF THAT, ALL OF THAT IMPROVEMENT THERE, BOTH THE WOOD, THE CONCRETE PIECES, THE STAIRS, ALL OF THAT SEEMS TO BE TO THE YOU KNOW, SEEMS TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PROPERTY AND INTO SOMEONE ELSE'S EASEMENT AREA. SO I'M TRYING TO PULL UP THE PICTURES ON MY LAPTOP REAL QUICK, BECAUSE I JUST GAVE YOU THE ONES THAT I HAD PRINTED OUT. I SEE. SO IF YOU COULD GIVE ME ONE SECOND, PLEASE APPROACH AND RETURN THOSE TO MR. RAMIREZ SO THAT HE CAN MARK ON THOSE PHOTOS WHERE HE THINKS THE TOP OF BANK. I WAS DEENA FREEMAN WITH THE COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT WHEN IT COMES TO THE BOUNDARY AND DEFINING THE BOUNDARY, YOU'VE GOT TO BE REALLY CAREFUL WITH THAT. WITH REGARDS TO NOT BEING OVERZEALOUS WITH HOW WE APPLY DRAWING A BOUNDARY ON A PHOTO, OR WHEN THERE'S A LEASABLE AREA THAT EXTENDS 100FT BACK INTO AND HE'S EXPANDING HIS EXTENDED BEYOND THAT 100FT, WHICH IS INTO THE INDIAN WOOD OWNERSHIP AND BREACHING THE TENANCY AGREEMENT. SO WHAT WE TRY TO DO IS NOT REALLY GET INTO DEFINING THE BOUNDARY OR THE EXTENT WITHOUT WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, HIS CHILDREN AND THE INDIAN WOOD AND NOT REALLY GETTING INTO BOUNDARY DISPUTES IN THE CODE COMPLIANCE SIDE OF IT, BECAUSE IT COULD COMPLICATE THINGS. THE ONLY WAY WE COULD RESOLVE THIS IS THE EXPENSE OF GETTING THEM TO DO A SURVEY. AND SO WE'RE JUST I'M JUST BEING MINDFUL OF THAT'S WHY WE'RE AT THIS POINT, WE THOUGHT WE'D CONTINUANCE. WE WEREN'T GOING TO HAVE TO DO THIS. SO WE WEREN'T AS PREPARED, BUT WE REALLY DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT SIDE OF IT BECAUSE THERE'S AN OUTSIDE OF THIS DISPUTE WITH OBVIOUSLY THE OWNER AND THE GENTLEMAN WHO OWNS THE 
          [00:30:01]
MOBILE HOME, BUT NOT THE PROPERTY. SO THE NEXT STEP IS FOR THE CHILDREN TO COME OUT AND HELP WITH INDIAN WOOD AND WORKING WITH US. THE SON'S COMING FROM CALIFORNIA, WHICH IS WHY THE 90 DAYS WAS REQUIRED. SO THEY HAVE ENOUGH TIME. IT'S A LOT OF WORK. AND ALSO, YEAH, IT'S AN EXTENSIVE STRUCTURE THAT'S BEEN BUILT THERE. WHAT I'M TRYING TO WHAT I'M TRYING WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO HERE IS TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH I'M GOING TO GIVE A CONTINUANCE, I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE THIS IS IF IT'S A CONTINUANCE, IT MAY COME BACK TO UNDERSTAND WHERE, IF, IF THE VILLAGE HAD DOCUMENTED OR IF THERE WAS DOCUMENTATION THAT SHOWED MAYBE HE DID, HE KNOW OR WAS HE AWARE OF WHERE HIS BOUNDARY LINE SHOULD BE? HE'S DISPUTING THAT. AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE TRYING NOT TO GET INTO THE OWNER AND THE LEASE AGREEMENT. 
          AND WE DON'T WANT THE VILLAGE EVIDENCE. WE DON'T WANT THE VILLAGE INVOLVED IN A PROPERTY RIGHTS DISPUTE. BUT WHAT WE DO WANT TO DO IS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS THAT WE ARE AFFECTING IN OUR DECISION MAKING, THAT WE PRESERVE, WE PRESERVE THE VILLAGE'S POSITION WITH VIS A VIS WHATEVER PROPERTY RIGHTS THOSE OWNERS MAY HAVE BETWEEN EACH OTHER, AND ENFORCE AND TO ENFORCE THE VILLAGE'S CODE. SO WHERE THE VILLAGE'S CODE IS BEING VIOLATED FROM THE PHOTOS THAT I SAW, IT SEEMS THAT ALL OF THAT CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS UNPERMITTED AND WAS UNSAFE, SO THAT IT ALL NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT IS IF IT IF THERE WAS A LIMIT, REMOVE IT BACK TO HERE AND THAT STILL WORKS. I WOULD SAY ON THE CAUTIOUS SIDE, IT WOULD BE ANYTHING BEYOND 100FT THAT'S BEING MARKED OUT BY INDIAN WOOD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SIDE OF IT. THAT RATHER THAN US DEFINITIVELY DRAW A LINE ON A MAP OR A PHOTO, THAT'S THE WAY THAT WE'D MOVE FORWARD. I THINK IF THAT HELPS ANY, IT'D BE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND INDIAN WOOD TO REALLY DETERMINE WHERE THEIR BOUNDARY IS. YES. IT'S NOT UP TO THE VILLAGE. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS ENSURE THAT WHATEVER PERMIT THAT HE HAS, WHICH IS ONE FOR A SLAB WHICH HE'S OVER, OVERSTEP WHERE WHAT I WAS REALLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS WHERE THE LOCATION OF THAT WAS TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THAT, TO POSSIBLY CONSIDER, POSSIBLY CONSIDER IF THEY WERE TO MAKE SAFE WHATEVER WAS INSIDE THAT FOOTPRINT, POSSIBLY A PERMIT, A PERMIT, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF A RENEWAL PERMIT OR SOME SORT OF PERMIT MODIFICATION THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT SO THAT IT COULD SOMEHOW REDUCE THE BURDEN ON THE LANDOWNER, WHO IS AN ELDERLY GENTLEMAN, TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION AND TO HAVE THE CITY WORK WITH THE LANDOWNER FOR THE VIOLATION AND POSSIBLY THE OTHER LANDOWNER, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE CREEK. THE CANAL. 
          THE CANAL BANK. TO ENSURE THAT THEY THAT ALL THE OTHER, ALL THE SIDES ARE TRYING TO WORK TOGETHER TO BRING THIS PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE UNDER THE CITY CODE. UNDERSTOOD. AND THAT'S WHAT WE NEED. THE 90 DAYS WITH THE ALL OF THOSE PARTIES TO DO AFTER THIS HEARING. BECAUSE WE RECENTLY OBTAINED THE BUILDING PERMITS FOR MARTIN COUNTY, THEY WENT THROUGH THE HISTORIC RECORDS FROM WHEN IT WAS IN MARTIN COUNTY. SO WE GOT ALL THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PERMITTING. WE JUST NEED SOME TIME TO NOW WORK DIRECTLY WITH THEM. ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED. BUT I APPRECIATE WE'RE ALL KIND OF ON THE SAME PAGE, SO I APPRECIATE YOU. YEAH. I JUST, YOU KNOW, MY WHOLE THING IS, YOU KNOW, HE'S BUILT SOMETHING DOWN INTO THE WATER. THAT'S THAT'S PROBABLY CLEARLY OUTSIDE OF WHATEVER HE WAS PERMITTED TO DO. SO THAT'S UNPERMITTED. SO, YOU KNOW, DO YOU NEED TO GET SOMEBODY OUT THERE TO EITHER STAKE IT OFF TO PREVENT ANYONE FROM GETTING TO IT, OR TO REMOVE IT SO THAT NO ONE WILL BE INJURED IF IT'S THAT UNSAFE. YOU KNOW WHAT I SAW LOOKED IT. IT LOOKED LIKE MANY, MANY DOCK OR ACCESS WATER ACCESS STRUCTURES IN FLORIDA THAT ARE OLDER. SO WHEN YOU KNOW IF IT WAS BUILT, IF THIS HAS BEEN BUILT SINCE OH SIX, IT STILL LOOKS A PRETTY BAD SHAPE. YEAH. IF IT'S ONLY 20 YEARS OLD, PUT IT THAT WAY. THAT'S PRIMARILY THE GENTLEMAN WHO OWNS THE HOME THAT GOES BEHIND THERE. AND IT'S QUITE A CHALLENGE TO CONTROL THAT. OF COURSE IT IS. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO BE GENTLE WITH OUR APPROACH BECAUSE HE'S QUITE UPSET ABOUT THE WHOLE SITUATION. AND THAT'S WHY THE FAMILY MEMBERS ARE INVOLVED AND WHY WE'RE BEING REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT DEFINING THE EXTENT OF THE VIOLATION. WE'RE NOT HERE TO WE'RE NOT HERE TO STAY TO ESTABLISH THE TITLE TO AND OR BOUNDARY OF REAL PROPERTY, OKAY. 
          THAT CAN ONLY BE DONE BY A CIRCUIT JUDGE UNDER CHAPTER 26, FLORIDA STATUTES. GREAT STUFF CANNOT BE DONE HERE. THANK YOU. SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS ENSURE THAT WHATEVER HE'S BEING VIOLATED FOR, THAT WE DON'T WE DON'T NECESSARILY INCLUDE THE AREA WHERE HE MAY ALREADY HAVE THE PERMIT TO INCLUDE. THE OTHER AREA IS THERE A WAY TO WORK SO THAT YOU GET BACK INTO THE PERMITTED SPACE, REMOVE EVERYTHING ELSE, AND STILL KEEP THE SAFETY BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WHY WE'RE REALLY HERE. WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY FALLING DOWN BACK THERE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO 
          [00:35:02]
IN THIS 90 DAYS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION ON THAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO GRANT THE CONTINUANCE FOR 90 DAYS TO ALLOW THE OWNERS HERE TO WORK WITH THE VILLAGE AND BRING THE STRUCTURE INTO COMPLIANCE. AND IF, IF, IF IN THAT TIME, IT HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED TO THE VILLAGE'S SATISFACTION OF COURSE, YOU CAN BRING IT BACK BEFORE US AND WE'LL MOVE FROM THERE. BUT LET'S HOPE THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW THE VILLAGE TO WORK WITH ONE OF ITS OLDER MEMBERS, OLDER RESIDENTS AND FIND A POSITIVE SOLUTION. 
          OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN SO THAT WAS 20 149 2124 191. AND NOW WE'RE ON TO OUR SPECIAL SET CASE. WHICH IS 2402 FIVE. PLEASE, DANIEL WITTEN. AND MR. RAMIREZ, YOU SAID YOU HAD A PRESENTATION ON THAT CASE AND YOU HAD YOU HAD A REQUEST THE VILLAGE DID HAVE DID DID WANT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AND MAKE A REQUEST IN THAT MATTER. SO PLEASE MOVE FORWARD ONE SECOND. 
          I'M PULLING IT UP HERE ON MY COMPUTER. ALL RIGHT. AGAIN, MY NAME IS STEVEN RAMIREZ FOR THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN TOWN. I'M A CODE COMPLIANCE INSPECTOR FOR THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN TOWN. THIS CASE WAS INITIATED PROACTIVELY BACK IN MARCH 27TH OF 2024 BY CODE OFFICER ROB PEREZ. AT THE TIME, THE RESPONDENT IS DANIEL NGUYEN, WHO IS NOT PRESENT. AND THIS THIS CASE CONCERNS THE PROPERTY AT 15007 SOUTHWEST OSCEOLA STREET, INDIANTOWN, FLORIDA. ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PROPERTY OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE MARTIN COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DANIEL WITTEN. A COPY OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S RECORD OF OWNERSHIP IS MARKED BEFORE YOU AS VILLAGE EXHIBIT ONE. ON MARCH 27TH, ROB, THE INSPECTOR AT THE TIME, INSPECTED THE PROPERTY AND AT THAT TIME HE OBSERVED THE FOLLOWING CODE VIOLATIONS. 
          SECTION 9132 ABANDONED SALVAGE OR JUNKED PROPERTY. AT THE TIME, I PHOTOGRAPHED NEW PHOTOS NOW COMING INTO OCTOBER 20TH, 24, AND IT'S GOING TO BE SHOWN TO YOU AS EXHIBIT TWO A TO BE TO SEE AND TO D. BASED ON ROB'S INVESTIGATION, HE ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON MARCH 27TH, 2024 FOR THE HEARING OF APRIL 16TH, 2024, WHICH IS I'M GOING TO STOP. I'M GOING TO STOP YOU RIGHT THERE. I'M GOING TO STRIKE THAT PART OF YOUR TESTIMONY AS IT'S HEARSAY. THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE US, WHICH IS EXHIBIT THREE, IS THIS. SO THAT'S THE ORIGINAL NOVEL THAT ROB CREATED. WAS THIS NOVEL WAS THIS IN THE CITY'S RECORDS AND WAS KEPT AS A YES FROM THE CITY RECORDS? OKAY, YES. SO THIS WAS IN HIS CASE FILE. SO I'M GOING TO ACCEPT THIS INTO EVIDENCE UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS EXCEPTION. OKAY. BUT I CAN'T ACCEPT IT BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY, AS YOU COULD HAVE GOTTEN MR. PEREZ HERE AND HE COULD HAVE GIVEN HIS TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT HE SAW. WHAT YOU'RE GIVING TESTIMONY ABOUT NOW IS THIS. IT'S HEARSAY. YOU'RE TELLING ME WHAT HE SAID OR SAW RATHER THAN RELYING ON THE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE BEFORE US. SO I'M GOING TO STRIKE SOME OF YOUR SOME OF YOUR I'M NOT GOING TO RELY ON SOME OF YOUR ORAL TESTIMONY WITH REGARD TO WHAT HE SAW, BUT I AM GOING TO RELY ON THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT WAS PART OF THE RECORD THAT THE CITY KEPT. OKAY, OKAY. SO IN THAT NOTICE, HE WAS GIVEN UNTIL APRIL 8TH TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE FOR THOSE VIOLATIONS LISTED, WHICH IS THAT ONE. THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE RESPONDENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL AND DELIVERY, WHICH THERE IS A TRACKING PROVIDED TO YOU, SHOWN AS EXHIBIT FOUR FOR THE TRACKING OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WAS SENT TO HIM. OKAY. THERE'S ALSO A MAIL OUT RECEIPT FOR THE NOTICE OF HEARING THAT I ISSUED THAT IS AS EXHIBIT A55, EXHIBIT FIVE A AND EXHIBIT FIVE B, ALL 
          [00:40:01]
RIGHT, WHICH SHOWS THAT THESE ARE THE NOTICES YOU PREPARED BOTH THIS NOTICE YOU PREPARED THESE NOTICES AND YOU FORWARDED THEM TO THE PROPERTY OWNER? YES. OKAY. THE NOTICE OF HEARING IS WHAT I PREPARED TO GIVE TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN REFERENCE TO THIS NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WAS ISSUED BACK IN MARCH, WHICH AT THE TIME FOR EXHIBIT NINE, WHICH IS ALL THE WAY AT THE BACK, THERE WAS A CONTINUANCE ORDERED FOR THIS NOTICE THAT WAS PART OF THE DOCUMENTATIONS THAT WE HAVE HERE. OKAY. I SEE THAT. YES. ALL RIGHT. I ALSO MARKED BEFORE YOU PHOTOGRAPHS THAT I TOOK OF THE PROPERTY THAT STILL EXIST. THE VIOLATION THAT WAS MARKED BEFORE ON THAT NOVI ON OCTOBER 24TH. S. THESE ARE EXHIBITS TWO EXHIBIT COMPOSITE EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH IS TWO A THROUGH D. AND THESE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU PERSONALLY I PERSONALLY TOOK MYSELF OF THE VIOLATION 24TH OF 2024. I'LL ACCEPT EXHIBIT 2A2A THROUGH TO D COMPOSITE. EXHIBIT TWO. I ACCEPT THAT INTO EVIDENCE. ALSO ACCEPTING EXHIBIT ONE IN EVIDENCE. OKAY. AND EXHIBIT THREE. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CONTINUE. AT THE TIME I DID AFTER I DID MY POSTING OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH SHOWS AS EXHIBIT SIX. OKAY, I RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE RESPONDENT THE DAY AFTER, WHICH WOULD BE NOVEMBER 13TH. OKAY. AT THAT TIME, WE DISCUSSED THE VIOLATION AT HAND OF ALL THE INOPERABLE VEHICLES THAT HE DID HAVE ON THAT PROPERTY AND THAT NEEDED TO BE MOVED. ALL RIGHT. HE SAID HE WOULD DO IT OVER THE WEEKEND BY NOVEMBER 18TH. AT THE TIME, I DID A FOLLOW UP INSPECTION, WHICH YOU'LL SEE AS EXHIBIT A, EIGHT A THROUGH C, RIGHT OF WHERE HE CAME INTO COMPLIANCE. EXCEPT HE ONLY HAD A PILE OF PALLETS LEFT ON THE PROPERTY. OKAY. AND IS THAT STILL VIOLATION OF IS THAT STILL A. SO HE DID. SO HE DID COME INTO COMPLIANCE. BUT WHAT I AM ASKING FOR IS FOR A DO NOT REPEAT ORDER. OKAY. TO MAKE SURE THAT HE STAYS WITHIN COMPLIANCE BECAUSE HE HAS COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND ALSO COME OUT OF COMPLIANCE SEVERAL TIMES. OKAY. SO IN YOUR DO NOT REPEAT ORDER BECAUSE AND HERE'S WHY I'M WHEN YOU ASK FOR DO NOT REPEAT ORDER OR DO NOT REPEAT ORDER, YOU CAME INTO COMPLIANCE. IT'S NOT AN ORDER A FINAL ORDER OF COMPLIANCE A FINAL ORDER WITH REGARD TO COMPLIANCE AND NONCOMPLIANCE. DO NOT REPEAT ORDER MEANS THAT YOU'RE TRYING. 
          YOU WANT IT SO THAT IF THERE'S ANOTHER VIOLATION, YOU DON'T HAVE TO START THE ENTIRE VIOLATION PROCESS AGAIN. YES, YOU'RE TRYING TO DO OKAY. AND WHAT IS THE WHAT IS THE VIOLATION? THE DATE OF THE VIOLATION FROM WHICH YOU ARE SEEKING TO GET A DO NOT REPEAT FROM. SO I AM SEEKING IT AS OF FROM OCTOBER 24TH TO THE DAY THAT I TOOK THE PICTURES MYSELF. 
          FROM THAT DAY ON. OKAY. AND DO YOU HAVE A TIME? A TIME FRAME FOR THIS? DO NOT REPEAT ORDER 90 DAYS, 180 DAYS, 360 DAYS. SO NORMALLY EVERY TIME I'VE ASKED FOR A DO NOT REPEAT ORDER PRIOR, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A FIVE YEAR, JUST LIKE A FINAL ORDER. OKAY? ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU DO YOU REALLY DO YOU ANTICIPATE FUTURE VIOLATIONS OR FUTURE ISSUES WITH THE PROPERTY? DO I ANTICIPATE IT? YES. YES OKAY. IS THIS A PROPERTY THAT'S USED FOR A LOT OF SALVAGE AND OR STORAGE? YES. 
          OKAY. IS THERE A WAY THAT THE OWNER CAN GET PERMITTED TO HAVE THAT USE OF THE PROPERTY? NO. 
          OKAY. USES CAN THE PROPERTY BE PUT TO JUST SO THAT AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE OWNER SO THAT SO THAT BOTH THE VILLAGE AND MAYBE YOU CAN CONTACT, YOU KNOW, LAW ENFORCEMENT OR WHAT USES CAN THAT PROPERTY BE PUT TO IF NOT TO STORE ANYTHING. AND HE CAN GET A PERMIT TO STORE. SO THE USE OF SO THE USE OF WHERE THE PROPERTY IS, IS IN SINGLE FAMILY 
          [00:45:03]
RESIDENTIAL CAN BE USED TO STORE INOPERABLE VEHICLES OR USE AS A SALVAGE YARD. OKAY. SO IT CAN'T BE OPERATED. IT'S NOT IN A BUSINESS DISTRICT ANYWHERE. IT CAN'T BE USED AS A BUSINESS OR HE COULDN'T, YOU KNOW, HE COULDN'T GUSSY IT UP AND MAKE IT A NURSERY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. NO. SO IT'S IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA WHERE THERE'S NO THERE'S NO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ALLOWED. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO I'VE ALREADY ACCEPTED EXHIBIT ONE. 
          TWO, THREE INTO EVIDENCE. EXHIBIT FOUR WAS THIS IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WAS IN THE RECORDS OF THE VILLAGE, OR WAS THIS WHAT WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE? SO EXHIBIT FOUR IS THE MAIL OUT OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WAS ISSUED TO DANIEL WITTEN? OKAY. WHICH IS A NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT ROB CREATED, WHICH IS BEFORE YOU AS EXHIBIT THREE. I SEE. SO IT'S THE MAIL OUT, THE TRACKING OF. SO THERE'S NOT A RETURN. THERE'S NOT A CERTIFIED MAIL OR RETURN RECEIPT REQUEST. SO THAT'S THE CERTIFIED MAIL TRACKING. OKAY. ALL RIGHT I'M GOING TO. I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS EVIDENCE UNDER ADVISEMENT. AND ONLY BECAUSE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING CERTIFIED FROM THE POST OFFICE CERTIFIED. YOU KNOW, USUALLY WE HAVE USUALLY WE HAVE THE CERTIFIED MAIL OR SOME SORT OF STAMP FROM THE POST OFFICE. THIS IS SIMPLY A PRINTOUT AND THAT IT'S BASED ON TESTIMONY. THAT'S HEARSAY TESTIMONY FROM MR. PEREZ FOR YOU IN THE FUTURE, IF YOU WANT TO BRING THIS MATTER FORWARD AGAIN, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY ASK MR. PEREZ TO SHOW UP AND GIVE HIS TESTIMONY WITH REGARD TO HIS PARTICIPATION IN THESE MATTERS SO THAT IT'S NOT HEARSAY, BECAUSE WITH YOU TELLING ME WHAT MR. PEREZ DID, WHEN MR. PEREZ IS AVAILABLE TO COME HERE AND TELL IT HIMSELF, THAT'S THE PROBLEM. OKAY. SO IF IT IF IT BECOMES AN ISSUE IN THE FUTURE, JUST KIND OF GIVING YOU THAT HEADS UP. SO THAT YOU'RE NOT RUNNING INTO HEARSAY ISSUES WHERE YOU'RE GIVING TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT YOU SAW SOMEBODY ELSE, IF YOU SAW THAT PERSON DO IT, THAT'S YOUR OWN TESTIMONY ABOUT YOU SEEING THEM. BUT IF THEY TOLD YOU WHAT THEY DID AND THEN YOU'RE NOW TRYING TO REPEAT THAT, THAT'S NOT GOOD EVIDENCE. IT NEEDS TO BE FROM THE PERSON THAT DID IT. AND WHAT THEY DID, AS OPPOSED TO YOU TELLING ME WHAT THEY TOLD YOU YOU DID. 
          OKAY. SO IT'S JUST JUST A MINOR ISSUE AND IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT WHAT THE OUTCOME IS HERE, BUT JUST JUST IN THE FUTURE. AS FAR AS EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. OKAY. SO I'M NOT I'M I'M GOING TO TAKE EXHIBIT FOUR UNDER ADVISEMENT. I DO ACCEPT EXHIBIT FIVE AND THE COMPOSITE OF EXHIBIT FIVE, WHICH IS FIVE B, FIVE A AND FIVE B, EXHIBIT SIX, WHICH IS YOUR PHOTOGRAPH. EXHIBIT SEVEN, WHICH IS YOUR AFFIDAVIT. AND THEN EXHIBIT COMPOSITE. EXHIBIT EIGHT HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO EVIDENCE. OKAY. 
          OKAY. AND THE ORDER IS GOING TO BE A DO NOT REPEAT ORDER. IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE NATURE OF A FINAL ORDER. EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS COMPLIED, IT WILL BE A FINAL ORDER. WITH DO NOT REPEAT. FOR FIVE FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS. ALL RIGHT. WOULD THE VILLAGE, LIKE ANY OTHER INFORMATION PUT INTO THAT ORDER? YES. SO IF HE DOES COME OUT OF COMPLIANCE, WE WOULD LIKE THAT THERE BE $100 PER VIOLATION A DAY IF HE DOES COME OUT OF COMPLIANCE. AND ALSO THE VILLAGE HAS INCURRED A REASONABLE ADMINISTRATIVE COST AND THE AMOUNT OF $150 FOR CONDUCTING THIS INVESTIGATION. 
          OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND LET'S HOPE MR. WITTEN AND ANY OTHER OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY CAN SECURE THE PROPERTY A LITTLE BETTER AND MAYBE NOT HAVE IT BE USED FOR SOMETHING THAT VIOLATES THE VILLAGE CODE. ALL RIGHT. THE VILLAGE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TODAY? NO. WE. YEP. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT BASED ON EVERYTHING HERE, I'M GOING TO DO A COUPLE ORDERS. THE ONLY ORDER I REALLY NEED TO DO IS I NEED TO DO THE CONTINUANCE ORDER. AND THEN THE DO NOT REPEAT ORDER. AND. ALSO ALSO THE ORDER OF COMPLIANCE FOR 24 179. SO THAT SHOULD BE THREE ORDERS THAT YOU'LL BE LOOKING FOR IN WRITING. AND THAT'S WHAT I MADE HERE FROM THE DAIS. AND IF THERE'S NO OTHER BUSINESS, I 
          [00:50:01]
THINK THE HEARING IS THE HEARING SHOULD BE ADJOURNED. THANK
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.