[00:00:01]
TYPEKIT HER. ARE YOU READY? READY. OKAY. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. I'M GOING TO CALL TO
[1) CALL TO ORDER]
ORDER THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN TOWN SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING FOR AUGUST 18TH, 2026 AT 10 A.M. IF YOU PLEASE RISE, JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. OKAY, PLEASE BE SEATED. WE DO HAVE ONE[3.1) August Magistrate Docket]
SPECIALLY SET CASE THIS MORNING. IT'S CASE NUMBER 22-002. AND IT'S A CASE THAT WE ACTUALLY DID HEAR BEFORE. IT WAS THE GRACE M GRIFFIN ESTATE AND SHARITA GRIFFIN. AND I RECALL THAT MISS GRIFFIN DID APPEAR BY ZOOM. AND AND I GUESS WE'VE GOT HER AGAIN TODAY. AND THIS IS A REQUEST. FOR REHEARING IS HOW IT'S COMING TO ME. SO LET'S LET'S SEE IF YOU COULD GIVE ME ONE SECOND, MR. NICOLETTI. MISS. MISS GRIFFIN, HE IS SENDING YOU A PANELIST INVITATION. PLEASE ACCEPT IT. THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD SPEAK AND PARTICIPATE IN THIS HEARING IS IF YOU ARE ABLE TO PULL UP THE CAMERA AND TO BE A PART OF THE PANEL. OKAY. MISS GRIFFIN, ARE YOU THERE? YES, YES. I'M HERE. OKAY, GREAT. ALL RIGHT. SO, DID YOU HEAR ME ANNOUNCE THE CASE? YES. OKAY, TERRIFIC. ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS I'LL SWEAR YOU IN IN A LITTLE BIT.LET'S HEAR FROM THE THE VILLAGE AS TO THE STATUS OF THE CASE. AND THEN AND THEN I'LL SWEAR YOU IN AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHAT YOU ALL HAVE TO TELL ME. OKAY. SO. OFFICER NARANJO, IF YOU'LL RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? YES. ALRIGHT. AND. IF YOU'LL GO AHEAD AND MAYBE JUST KIND OF INTRODUCE THIS ITEM AND THEN AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE. ALL. WE GOOD. GOOD MORNING. FOR THE RECORD, JONATHAN NARANJO, CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER FOR THE VILLAGE OF INDIANTOWN. THE RESPONDENT IS PRESENT TODAY VIA ZOOM. THIS CASE CONCERNS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14604 SOUTHWEST 1/69 AVENUE, INDIANTOWN, FLORIDA. AT THE PREVIOUS MAGISTRATE HEARING, I PRESENTED THE HISTORY OF THIS CASE ALONG WITH VILLAGE VILLAGE'S EXHIBIT SIX THROUGH 28. AT THE HEARING, WE REACHED AN AGREEMENT PROVIDING THAT THE RESPONDENT WOULD PAY A TOTAL OF 15,450 WITHIN 30 DAYS. THE AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT, FOLLOWING APPROVAL BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL AND THE SUBSEQUENT PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, THE CONTRACT PURCHASER WOULD DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE AND CLEAN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHIN 60 DAYS OF PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. YES, DEFINE THE RESULTING FINE REDUCTION ORDER IS MARKED AS VILLAGE EXHIBIT 29. LET'S SEE.
I HAVE A COPY OF THAT BACK HERE SOMEWHERE. YEAH, RIGHT IN FRONT. OKAY. OH, YES. ALL RIGHT.
THAT'S THE ORDER. ON JULY 30TH, MY DIRECTOR AND I RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM MISS GRIFFIN'S REALTOR AND HER INVESTORS. DURING THAT CONVERSATION, THEY ASKED WHETHER IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURE NOT TO BE DEMOLISHED BECAUSE THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER WAS NO LONGER IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEMOLITION REQUIREMENT. WE ADVISED THEM THAT WE WOULD NEED TO SPEAK DIRECTLY WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, MISS GRIFFIN, REGARDING ANY REQUESTED CHANGE TO THE PRIOR AGREEMENT. AFTER SPEAKING WITH MISS GRIFFIN, WE ADVISED HER TO SUBMIT AN EMAIL FORMALLY REQUESTING A REHEARING BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE. ON JULY 31ST, 2026, I RECEIVED MISS GRIFFIN'S EMAIL REQUESTING A REHEARING. THE EMAIL IS MARKED AS VILLAGE EXHIBIT 30. OKAY. I SUBSEQUENTLY SPOKE WITH MISS GRIFFIN AND ADVISED HER THAT
[00:05:09]
THE REHEARING WOULD BE SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 18TH, 2026. A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS MAILED TO MISS GRIFFIN THAT THE DOCUMENT IS MARKED AS VILLAGE EXHIBIT 31. OKAY. TRACKING IS MARKED AS VILLAGE EXHIBIT 32. ADDITIONALLY, ON AUGUST 7TH, 2026, I EMAILED MISS GRIFFIN A COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE MARKED AS VILLAGE EXHIBIT 33. ALSO WITH POSTING MARKED AS VILLAGE EXHIBIT 34 AND MY AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE MARKED AS VILLAGE EXHIBIT 35. AS OF TODAY, AUGUST 18TH, 2026, THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY AND STRUCTURE REMAIN THE SAME CONDITIONS. THE VILLAGE IS ALSO REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL $150 ADMINISTRATIVE COST FOR TODAY'S HEARING BE ADDED TO THE PREVIOUS, PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED AMOUNT OF 15,450, BRINGING THE TOTAL AMOUNT REQUESTED TO 15,600. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD THAT THE PROPOSED SALE OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT BY ITSELF RELIEVE MISS GRIFFIN OF HER RESPONSIBILITIES AS THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER. IF THE PROPOSED SALE DOES NOT OCCUR OR OTHERWISE DOES NOT PROCEED AS PLANNED, MISS GRIFFIN REMAINS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE ORDERS REQUIREMENTS. WHILE SHE REMAINS THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE MATTER IS NOW BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE. BASED UPON THE RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR THE REHEARING CONCERNING TERMS AND PRIOR FINE REDUCTION ORDER AT THIS TIME, THE VILLAGE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE MAGISTRATE CONSIDER THE RESPONDENTS HEARING. OKAY. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND, MISS GRIFFIN, YOU HEARD ALL OF THAT. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. ALL RIGHT. AND I'M GOING TO I AT THE LAST HEARING, I HAD A A COPY OF YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE AND VERIFIED THAT IT WAS YOU. YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON, I'M ASSUMING. ALL RIGHT. SO IF YOU'LL IF YOU WILL IF YOU'LL RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? YES. ALRIGHT, GOOD. THANK YOU, MISS GRIFFIN. AND MAYBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS, JUST TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED. IT LOOKS LIKE IT HAPPENED JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AFTER THE HEARING THAT YOUR PURCHASER HAD SOMEHOW CHANGED THEIR MIND ABOUT DEMOLITION. WELL, THAT'S BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GO DOWN ON THE SALE PRICE. AND THEN I SAID, WELL, THAT WOULDN'T BE WORTH THE FIGHT. THEN I'LL BACK OUT. AND SO THE INVESTOR TALKED ME INTO IT AND HE SAID, I'LL TALK TO THE BUYER. SO THE BUYER SAID THAT IF I BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE, CAN WE NOT DEMO? I SAID, THAT'S SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO BRING TO THE MAGISTRATE. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. AND THEY HAD THEIR CONTRACTORS GO OUT. AND I GUESS ONE SIDE IS STILL SALVAGEABLE, THEY SAID. SO THEY SAID THERE'S GOING TO HAVE THE CONTRACTORS BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE. SO THAT'S WHY THEY ASKED ME TO COME AND ASK FOR A REHEARING. AND THEY'RE THE ONES THAT'S GOING TO GET IT INTO COMPLIANCE. ALL RIGHT. SO YEAH. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY IS? I DON'T KNOW, BUT THEY REALLY WANT THAT PROPERTY. THEY WANT WHAT THEY WANT BOTH LIKE BECAUSE I TOLD THEM I'M GOING TO BACK OUT AND THEY SAID NO, NO, NO. LIKE THEY REALLY WANT THE PROPERTY BECAUSE I MEAN, WE DON'T EXTENDED THE, THE CLOSING DATE.SO MANY TIMES YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THEY WALKED, THEY WOULD WALK AWAY. BUT NO, THEY STILL STANDING STRONG. THEY WANT THOSE PROPERTIES. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. LET ME JUST HEAR FROM MRS. FREEMAN, WHO IS THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR THE VILLAGE. I'M GOING TO SWEAR HER IN NOW TOO. OKAY. DINA, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. SO HELP YOU GOD, I DO. ALRIGHT, SO THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE BUILDING. WELL, WHAT IS IT? FIRST OFF, I DON'T. I DON'T REALLY KNOW, I NEVER REALLY. I NEVER REALLY UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT THE BUILDING WAS AND HOW
[00:10:05]
IT FUNCTIONED. AND IS IT, WAS IT RESIDENTIAL? WAS IT IT'S FUNCTIONING AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. AT SOME POINT IT WAS DECLARED THAT IT SHOULD BE DEMOLISHED, AND THEN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR ASSISTANT BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS BEEN OUT AND INSPECTED THE PROPERTY WITH JONATHAN. IN MORE RECENT TIMES. AND, AND BASICALLY SAID THAT IT'S GOING TO COST QUITE A LOT OF MONEY TO RENOVATE IT, BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY AN UNSAFE STRUCTURE. CORRECT, JONATHAN, BUT THAT THERE'S QUITE A LOT OF WORK, SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK TO BE DONE. OKAY. AND FROM CODE COMPLIANCE POINT OF VIEW, WE, WE, WE NEED A COMPLIANCE EITHER WAY IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, BRINGING IT UP TO BUILDING CODE OR DEMOLISHING EITHER ONE OF THOSE. YEAH. AND, AND IS THE UNDERLYING ZONING SINGLE FAMILY, I CAN'T RECALL, ACTUALLY. I'D HAVE TO LOOK, I'M SORRY, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I LOOKED AT IT. ALL RIGHT. THE REASON I'M ASKING THAT IS BECAUSE IT MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT POTENTIAL USE. EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEEN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. CAN WE LOOK AT THE ZONING? JUST PULL UP THE ZONING MAP BECAUSE IT'S SINGLE FAMILY CLASSIFICATION ON THE MARTIN COUNTY PROPERTY. APPRAISER'S. BUT JONATHAN IS JUST GOING TO PULL IT UP ON THE MAP. OKAY. I'VE NOT MEMORIZED THE ZONING. I THINK IT'S NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT WITH MY EYES. AND THEN THE LAYER. THE ZONING. YEAH, JUST CLICK ON THAT. YOU CAN'T SHARE THAT. BUT I MEAN, IT'S JUST IT'S A LIGHT ON NEIGHBORHOOD.YEAH. NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE. SO IT'S SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE WHAT'S ALREADY THERE IS APPROVED AND AND GRANDFATHERED IN. THERE ARE A MULTITUDE OF USES YOU COULD DO ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE, INCLUDING COMMERCIAL, LIKE A RESTAURANT. IT'S A VERY BROAD BASED MIXED USE ZONING. WHERE IS THIS? WHERE IS THE PROPERTY? 0169 IT'S OFF OF SOUTHWEST 1/69 WEST OF SOUTHWEST. 1/69. IT'S A SMALL SINGLE FAMILY. YOU KNOW, A LOT OF RECORD FROM THE OLD PLAT. OKAY. IN BOCA PARK. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS THE QUESTION IN MY MIND IS. ARE YOU BEING ASKED TO DO SOMETHING, MISS GRIFFIN, THAT ISN'T ISN'T REALLY A A GOOD MOVE FOR YOU.
AND I MEAN, MY ORDER DOES STAND AND IT REQUIRES DEMOLITION. AND MAYBE YOUR MAYBE YOUR INVESTOR AND BUYER DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND IT EITHER, THAT THERE ARE POTENTIAL USES FOR THAT PROPERTY THAT WOULD. WOULD GREATLY INCREASE THE VALUE OF IT. AND, AND FOR THE VILLAGE TO.
ALLOW IT TO CONTINUE, THE ANTICIPATION WOULD BE THAT EITHER A. IT WAS COMPLETELY RENOVATED AS SOME OTHER USE, OR THAT IT WAS RENOVATED AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. IT'S ALMOST LIKE DEALER'S CHOICE IN SOME WAYS. I MEAN, YOU'RE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, BUT. BUT I BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR, I GUESS, IS, IS MY ADMONITION. I MEAN, DOES IT ACTUALLY MAKE SENSE FOR YOU? IT. AND I THINK I'M HEARING FROM THE VILLAGE, ALTHOUGH IT WASN'T STATED DIRECTLY THAT THAT PERHAPS IT'S NOT THE BEST THING FOR THE VILLAGE EITHER, BECAUSE THEN YOU COULD WIND UP WITH A. A BUILDING THAT WHILE IT, IT, IT MAY BE SAFE, IS STILL IN SUCH DISREPAIR THAT IT REALLY CAN'T BE USED FOR, FOR VERY MUCH. AND, AND IN FACT, IT WAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO. I, YOU KNOW, IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT A SITUATION WHERE I WOULD WANT TO SEE YOU OR THE VILLAGE GET INTO A, A PLACE WHERE A NEW OWNER COMES IN AND TRIES TO PUT FIVE FAMILIES IN THAT BUILDING AND, AND BECOME A SLUMLORD. THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR YOU OR FOR THE VILLAGE. I YOU YOU HAVE A CONTRACT, DO YOU NOT ON THIS PROPERTY. YOU DO? YES. OR A
[00:15:06]
WRITTEN CONTRACT. YES. OKAY. I DON'T NEED TO TO SEE IT. IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE PART OF THE EVIDENCE. BUT BUT I THINK. I, I THINK. I'M NOT HEARING ANY COMPELLING REASON UNLESS YOU CAN TELL ME ONE. WHY, WHY I SHOULD REVERSE THIS RULING AND ORDER SOMETHING OTHER THAN DEMOLITION. BECAUSE I'M WALKING AWAY. THIS IS TOO MUCH TROUBLE FOR. I'M SORRY. I DON'T SEE THE VALUE IN IT. I HATE TO SAY IT NOW. THESE BUYERS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY SEE. MAYBE THEY KNOW SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW. BUT THE INVESTOR TALKED ME INTO STAYING IN WITH IT BECAUSE MY MOTHER SAID YOU SHOULD HAVE JUST LEFT IT. THEY WOULD HAVE CAUGHT UP WITH ELOISE AND WHAT SHE WAS DOING, AND THEY WOULD HAVE TOOK IT FROM HER. BUT YEAH, AT THIS POINT, IT'S LIKE THE BUYER SAID, THEY'RE WILLING TO TAKE IT ALL ON. THEY JUST NEED THE PROPERTY. OKAY. AND AS FAR AS THEM GOING IN THERE DOING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT. I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE ON THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE BUYING THE PROPERTY. I'LL BE OUT THE PICTURE. ALL RIGHT. BUT AS YES, GO AHEAD. VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. I MEAN WHAT ARE THEY PAYING YOU. WHAT ARE THEY OKAY. YOU'VE GIVEN A CASH PRICE. YEAH. AND THAT IT'S A CASH PRICE. OKAY. YEAH. AND I SAID, WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING BACK DOWN ON THAT BECAUSE THEN IT'S WORTHLESS. IT'S NOT USEFUL TO US. IT'S NOT PROFITABLE. BUT I STILL GOT TO PAY THE VILLAGE AND WE HAVE TO PAY THEM THAT MONEY BECAUSE MY FATHER DIDN'T KEEP IT UP BECAUSE MY UNCLE, HE WAS IN NO POSITION. HE HAD MENTAL ISSUES.HE HAD A CLOSE FRIEND LOOKING IN ON HIM AND SHE DID WHATEVER SHE DID, RENTING IT OUT AND EVERYTHING. AND I GUESS WHEN YOU GUYS KICKED THEM OUT OF THERE IN 2021, YES, HE WAS STAYING AT HER FAMILY MEMBER'S HOUSE AND I GUESS HE WAS TEARING UP THEIR HOUSE BECAUSE HE WANTED TO GO BACK HOME. SO THEN THEY BROUGHT HIM BACK TO HIS HOUSE AND SHE SAID, SOMEONE AT THE VILLAGE TOLD HER, AS LONG AS SHE FIX UP THE PLACE, HE COULD STAY THERE. NOW.
JONATHAN SAID HE DIDN'T FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT. SO SHE COMPLETELY LIED ABOUT THAT.
WELL, SO I MEAN, MAYBE, MAYBE NOT. MAYBE SOMEBODY DID TELL HER THAT, BUT THERE'S NOTHING WRITTEN. SO YEAH, JONATHAN SAID HE COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING. I ASKED HIM TO LOOK INTO IT. HE COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING. OKAY. SOMEONE TELLING HER THAT, YOU KNOW, MY UNCLE COULD GO BACK IN THERE BECAUSE HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN THERE. NO. ALL RIGHT. PAUL, CAN I SPEAK JUST TO FOLLOW UP? CODE COMPLIANCE IS ABOUT COMPLIANCE. SO, OF COURSE, THE ASSURANCE IS EITHER THEY DEMOLISH THE HOUSE AS PER THE ORIGINAL ORDER, OR IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE WHERE IT'S COMPLIANCE WITHIN A CERTAIN TIMELINE AS AN ALTERNATIVE? BUT EITHER WAY, THE END GAME IS TO GET COMPLIANCE ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE EITHER WAY, NO QUESTION. SO JUST A SUGGESTION THAT MAYBE WE THE ORDER BE CHANGED IN ORDER TO GIVE A DATE FOR DEMOLITION OR COMPLIANCE FOLLOWING SALE OF PROPERTY, RATHER THAN CONTINUE WITH THE DEMOLITION. SO THEY'VE GOT THE OPTION. THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT. YEAH. THEY JUST WANT LIKE THE SAME ROUTINE AS LAST. WELL, THEY WANT THE THEY DON'T WANT THE EITHER OR. THEY WANT TO RETAIN THE HOUSE. RIGHT. OKAY.
RIGHT. SO BASICALLY WHEN WE WENT BACK AND TOLD THEM, YOU GOT A DEMO. NO, YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO PAY FOR THE DEMO. NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. WE'RE COMING DOWN ON THE PRICE.
NO, YOU'RE NOT DOING THAT. WELL, SEE IF WE CAN HAVE A TIME FRAME TO GET IT UP TO CODE. AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY. THEY'RE WILLING TO GET IT UP TO CODE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. OKAY. THEY WANT TO TAKE DEMO OFF TO THE RECORD AND GET IT UP TO CODE. THEY'RE WILLING TO MAKE IT EITHER OR THEY CAN DECIDE THEMSELVES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THEN. THEN THAT WAY, IF YOUR IF YOUR SALE FALLS THROUGH, THEN YOU MAY DECIDE I'M, I'M JUST GOING TO DEMO IT AND BE DONE. SO AND I'M OKAY. AND I CAN GIVE YOU I, I'M, I'M THINKING AMENDING THE ORDER GIVE YOU ANOTHER 60 DAYS OR SO TO GET THE SALE DONE AND THEN THAT THAT WAY IT'S THIS IS 30 DAYS OF VILLAGE COUNT. OH, THIS IS A RECOMMENDED ORDER. HAS THEN HAS THIS BEEN TO THE NO COUNT. NO. HASN'T BEEN THE COUNCIL YET. OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO SAY EITHER OR AND THEN AND THEN 60 DAYS FROM THAT DATE. OKAY. AND
[00:20:02]
THEY'LL TAKE IT TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL. THAT WAY HOPEFULLY YOU CAN GET THIS DONE. OKAY. SO EITHER OR LIKE, AND THAT'S FOR BOTH PARTIES, RIGHT? LIKE IF IT FALLS THROUGH, BUT THEY WANT IT, SO THEY'RE JUST WAITING FOR TO GO. THAT'S OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO, SO WHEN CAN YOU GET THIS TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL? WELL FOLLOWING THIS, WE NEED OBVIOUSLY YOU TO TURN IT AROUND QUITE QUICKLY, LIKE PREFERABLY TODAY. SURE. AND THEN WE WILL CREATE THE WILL. THE AGENDA HAS ALREADY BEEN CREATED, BUT WE WILL TRY AND GET THAT APPROVED BY OUR VILLAGE ATTORNEY. PRIOR TO THE AGENDA BEING PUBLISHED ON FRIDAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY OUR BEST TO TO GET IT ONTO THE AGENDA FOR THE 27TH. IS IT AUGUST 27TH AT VILLAGE COUNCIL ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, POTENTIALLY, BUT THAT IS SUBJECT TO YOU WITH THE THE FINAL ORDER. AND THEN WE'VE WEIGHED THOSE REVIEWING THAT AND CONSIDERING IT, ALL OF IT ACCEPTABLE TO BE PUT ONTO THE AGENDA. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN. THE COSTS INCREASE. THE VILLAGE HAS ASKED FOR AN ADDITIONAL $150 FOR TODAY. ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? NO. ALL RIGHT. AND AND THEN I'M ASSUMING NO OBJECTION TO THE ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS ONE HOUR, 29 THROUGH 35 THAT WE LOOKED AT EARLIER. YOU'RE GOOD THAT WITH THOSE. NO, BUT IN THERE YOU GUYS SAID A FAMILY MEMBER WAS RENTING OUT THE PROPERTY. NO, IT WAS A CLOSE FRIEND OF THE FAMILY. OKAY. THAT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING OUT FOR MY UNCLE BECAUSE HE WAS MENTAL. HE THERE'S NO WAY HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THAT HOUSE. ALL RIGHT. AND SHE DID WHAT SHE DID. YEAH, SHE DID WHAT SHE DID. OFFICER NORONHA, YOU YOU WEREN'T AWARE THAT IT WAS EITHER A FAMILY MEMBER OR COULD HAVE BEEN A CLOSE FRIEND. THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER. REALLY? YEAH. RUMOR WAS IT WAS JUST SOME LADY IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WAS OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO YEAH, THAT'S FINE, I, I UNDERSTAND.OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO. BASED UPON ALL OF THE TESTIMONY AND. ACTUALLY THE COMPELLING TESTIMONY FROM YOU AND FROM THE STAFF, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND AND AMEND THIS ORDER AND.
WHAT I'M GOING TO DO THEN IS GIVE YOU 60 DAYS FROM VILLAGE COUNCIL APPROVAL TO EITHER DEMOLISH THE BUILDING. AND PAY $15,600 OR. ENTER INTO SOME AGREEMENT WITH THE VILLAGE TO RESTORE THE BUILDING, TO RENOVATE IT AND PAY AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING. I GUESS AGAIN, WITHIN 60 DAYS. EITHER WAY, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO PAY $15,600 TO THE TO THE VILLAGE.
WHETHER THEY DEMOLISH OR RENOVATE. OKAY, BUT I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU OR THEM 60 DAYS FROM THE VILLAGE COUNCIL APPROVAL, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE IT MAY GO ON THE AUGUST 27TH MEETING. OKAY, SO THINK ABOUT 60 DAYS OUT FROM FROM THERE TO GET THIS DECISION PRETTY WELL MADE AND PAID. SO YOU'LL NEED TO CLOSE WITHIN THAT TIME FOR SURE. OKAY? OKAY. OKAY. NOW, HOW MUCH IS IT FOR DEMOLITION? JUST IN CASE, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T FALL THROUGH, BUT IT WILL. BUT HOW MUCH? IT WOULD BE HARD FOR ME TO TELL YOU. I DON'T KNOW THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, BUT THERE IS A RANGE. MAYBE THAT THE VILLAGE COULD THINK ABOUT. NO. YEAH, I THINK I THINK WHAT YOU WOULD NEED TO DO IS TALK TO. THERE ARE COMPANIES DOWN HERE THAT YOU COULD CALL UP, AND THEY COULD TELL YOU PRETTY QUICKLY. THEY'D GO OUT AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND, AND LET YOU KNOW IT'S IT'S HARD TO KNOW ANYMORE. I MEAN, IT USED TO BE THAT, THAT IT WAS PRETTY RELATIVELY EASY TO, TO GIVE YOU A KIND OF A RANGE. BUT TODAY, CONTRACTING COSTS HAVE JUST CHANGED SO MUCH. SO, SO I WOULD SAY YOU NEED TO DO THAT. YOU MAY WANT TO START THAT TODAY. JUST CALL, CALL SOMEBODY AND FIND OUT. HAVE THEM GO OUT AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT IT WOULD COST TO DEMOLISH. DEMOLITION ISN'T JUST REMOVAL OF THE STRUCTURE EITHER. IT'S
[00:25:02]
GOT A YOU GOT TO CLEAN THE PROPERTY, GRADE THE PROPERTY AND STABILIZE THE, THE, THE LAND AREA, AND I DON'T THERE'S A PERMIT. DEENA FREEMAN THERE IS A BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR A DEMO OF A PROPERTY WHICH WILL CAPTURE ENCAPSULATE ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS THROUGH OUR BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW. SO YOU DON'T YOU DON'T JUST GO OUT THERE AND DEMO. BUT YES, A LICENSED CONTRACTOR THAT'S ABLE TO DEMO THE PROPERTY, THEY CAN GIVE YOU A QUOTE, MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE LICENSED AND REGISTERED OR WILLING TO BE WITH THE VILLAGE, AND THEN THEY CAN HELP YOU WITH THE FORMS AND INFORMATION. AND THEN THAT'S SUBMITTED TO THE VILLAGE PRIOR TO THE DEMO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU ARE QUESTIONING OR ASKING OR ARE YOU GOOD TO GO? I'M GOOD TO GO. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.GOOD. WELL, I'M GOING TO WORK ON THIS ORDER THIS AFTERNOON. HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET IT OUT TODAY TO THE VILLAGE AND TO YOU. AND THEN AND WE'VE GOT YOUR EMAIL, RIGHT? YES, I HAVE HER.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. SO IF THE IF THE VILLAGE AGREES ON THE 27TH, THEY'RE GOING TO SEND YOU THE AGREEMENT. AND THEN WE HAVE FROM THE 27TH TO DO WHATEVER. CORRECT. WHAT WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THE VILLAGE COUNCIL HAS TO ACTUALLY APPROVE THIS ORDER. YES, YES. IT'S A RECOMMENDED APPROVE IT ON THE 27TH. THEN IT STARTS THEIR OUR TIMELINE, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. EXACTLY. ALL RIGHT. YOU GOT IT. GOOD. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK TO YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHTY. HAVE A GOOD DAY. YOU TOO. BYE BYE. THANKS. BYE. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. YEAH. NO, I THINK THAT'S GOOD. YEAH. OKAY. LET'S SEE. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THIS IS. IT'S 260057. IT'S THE PROPERTY AT 14655 SOUTHWEST 1/69 DRIVE. AND THE OWNERS ARE JAIME AND CONSUELO MACEDO. AND YOU SHOWED US A NOTICE. WHAT IS THAT? YEAH. SO I NOTICED THE HOMEOWNERS, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE TENANTS. OKAY. BUT THERE WAS A MISTAKE. IN THE PAST MONTH WITH WITH ADMIN ON THE NOTICE PART. SO I JUST NOTICED THEM. SO IT WAS A CASE THAT ACTUALLY HAD GOTTEN ONTO YOUR DRAFT DOCKET. BUT YOU HAD NOT REALLY EVER INTENDED TO HEAR IT TODAY. YOU REALLY NOTICED IT FOR SEPTEMBER? YES.
NOTICE FOR SEPTEMBER, FOR SEPTEMBER HEARING. OKAY, SO I DON'T REALLY NEED TO DO A CONTINUANCE ON THAT. NO. SEPTEMBER HEARING. OKAY, GOOD. ALL RIGHT. AND LET'S SEE. NEXT CASE IS CASE NUMBER 260095. PROPERTY AT 14324 SOUTHWEST RANGE ROAD. AND THE OWNERS ARE ENRIQUE AND SHEILA MARIE ROSARIO. AND YOU'RE ASKING FOR A 30 DAY CONTINUANCE IN THIS CASE. AND WHAT'S THE STORY WITH THEM? CORRECT. SO SHE SENT ME AN EMAIL REQUESTING. A 30 DAY CONTINUANCE. THEY'VE COMPLIED WITH ONE PERMIT. THEY'RE WORKING ON ANOTHER PERMIT, WHICH THEY'RE HAVING ISSUES WITH THE CONTRACTOR WHO INSTALLED THE FENCE. SO 30 DAYS FOR THEM TO FIGURE FIGURE OUT WHO'S PULLING THE PERMIT. OKAY. SO IS THAT IN FOR IS THERE A PERMIT APPLICATION IN OR NO FOR ONE. YES. NOT THE FENCE YET. THAT'S THE ONE THEY'RE WORKING ON. OKAY. JUST DEENA FREEMAN. I'VE SPOKEN WITH THE CONTRACTOR AND WITH SHAILA ROSARIO AS WELL
[00:30:07]
AS JONATHAN. SO THERE IS INTENT TO COMPLETE THE PERMIT. AND WE JUST NEED THAT TIME PERIOD IN WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN VERY FIRM WITH THE CONTRACTOR THAT'S REQUIRED AS THE LICENSED CONTRACTOR. SO WE'RE WORKING WITH THEM. SO THE TIME WILL GIVE US THAT OPPORTUNITY TO GET THEM INTO COMPLIANCE, HOPEFULLY. ALL RIGHT. AND THE REQUEST IS FOR 30 DAY CONTINUANCE. YES.CORRECT. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE AT THE SEPTEMBER. I BELIEVE 15. LET'S ALL LOOK AT OUR CALENDARS.
SEPTEMBER 15TH. SEPTEMBER 15TH.
OKAY. SO WE'LL EITHER SEE THE ROSARIO CASE ON THE 15TH OF SEPTEMBER, OR THEY'LL PULL THEIR PERMITS AND BE OFF AND RUNNING. THE NEXT TWO CASES. THEY'RE THE SAME, SAME OWNER, SAME OWNER. OKAY, LET'S SEE WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE. THIS IS CASE 260098 FOR THE PROPERTY AT 16899 SOUTHWEST FARM ROAD. THE OWNER IS VANESSA K JONES. AND THEN THE NEXT CASE IS 260099 FOR THE PROPERTY AT 16879 SOUTHWEST FARM ROAD. ALSO VANESSA K JONES ARE THEY CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES? YES. ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT'S GOING ON THERE. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR A 30 DAY CONTINUANCE. THERE WAS. THEY'VE COMPLIED WITH THE OVERGROWTH. THERE'S A BROKEN FENCE. THAT'S. GOING INTO THE THE SIDEWALK. BUT RIGHT NOW THERE'S BEEN A CHANGE OF HANDS.
SO I WAS ASKING FOR A 30 DAY CONTINUANCE UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT THE LEGAL MATTER. OKAY. AND WHAT WHEN YOU SAY CHANGE OF HANDS, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP? DEENA FREEMAN THE OWNERSHIP IS IS REVERTED BACK TO WHAT WAS VANESSA WAS THE OWNER AND NOW IT'S GONE BACK INTO HER FATHER'S OWNERSHIP AS SOME SORT OF COURT ORDERED SITUATION. AND SHE I HAVE TO REACH OUT TO VANESSA AND HAVE HER FILE SOMETHING, CONFIRM WITH THE MARTIN COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S, BECAUSE SHE'S STILL SHOWS UP AS THE OWNER, SO I HAVE TO WORK WITH HER TO GET THAT OWNERSHIP TRANSFERRED BACK TO HER FATHER'S NAME, AND THEN HE'S RESPONSIBLE. HAVE YOU PULLED THE LATEST DEED? IT. WE WERE PROVIDED THE LEGAL INFORMATION FROM OUR VILLAGE CLERK, SO I THINK THAT IT INCLUDED THE THE COURT ORDERED INFORMATION, BUT NOT THE DEED. DO WE HAVE THAT AS AN EXHIBIT? I DON'T KNOW, I BELIEVE SO LET ME SEE IF I CAN PULL IT UP. I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE NEED TO NOTIFY THE CORRECT PERSON. WE HAVE THAT ON THE COURT ORDERED DOCUMENT. WE JUST WE HAVEN'T PULLED THE DEED BECAUSE WE WERE JUST ASKING FOR MORE TIME TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. IF THERE'S A COURT ORDER. INDICATING TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP, THAT IS THAT'S HELPFUL BECAUSE THEN THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE A DEED. BUT IF WE CAN GET A COPY OF THE COURT ORDER THAT MAY THAT MAY WE WE HAVE THAT. WE HAVE THE COURT ORDER. ORDER. ALL RIGHT. SO IN ANY IN ANY CASE, WE'RE LOOKING AT AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAY TAKING IT TO SEPTEMBER 15TH. YES. AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A LITTLE LESS THAN 30 DAYS. BUT. THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT SIDE IS IT. NO. IF I'M GOING TO HOLD THAT ASIDE
[00:35:10]
AND IF YOU ALL CAN JUST COME UP WITH THAT COURT ORDER AND WE'LL LOOK AT THAT. AND THEN. SHE SENT IT TO US, I GOT IT. OH. WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT ONE. I SEE YOU BOTH. I GOT HER HAIR.YOU GOT IT. LOOKING ONLINE. I'M PRINTING UP. BUT WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO 260 100. YEAH. FOR THE PROPERTY OF 15094 SOUTHWEST SEMINOLE DRIVE. AND THE OWNER THERE IS JUAN, MIGUEL, MATEO. AND YOU'RE REQUESTING A 60 DAY CONTINUANCE IN THAT CASE, YES.
60 DAYS. ALL RIGHT. WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE STORY WITH THAT? SO THE THE OWNER, JUAN MIGUEL MATEO HAS PASSED. SO WE'RE GIVING A LITTLE TIME TO THE WIFE. TO COMPLY WITH THE TALL GRASS IN THE BACK AND THE LIVESTOCK. ALL RIGHT. SO. YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT TO THE 20TH OF OCTOBER, CORRECT? OKAY. AND WHAT'S WHAT KIND OF LIVESTOCK ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? THEY HAVE CHICKENS AND GEESE. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. BASED UPON YOUR REPRESENTATIONS, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE THAT CASE TO OCTOBER 20TH. AND THAT'S CASE 260100.
OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU GOT THAT ANSWER. AND LET'S SEE OCTOBER. 20TH.
ALL RIGHT. BACK ON. CASES 26098 AND 099. THIS ARE THE VANESSA K JONES CASES. AND. PAUL IF I CAN. SO ON PAGE TWO OF THREE VANESSA K JONES IS REQUIRED TO FILE A QUIT CLAIM DEED OR INSTRUMENT CONVEYING ANY RIGHT TITLE OR INTEREST. THAT'S NOT BEEN DONE YET. SO THAT'S THE THING THAT WE NEED TO ENCOURAGE AND REMIND VANESSA THAT SHE NEEDS TO DO.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THE THERE, THERE WAS APPARENTLY A QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED IN FEBRUARY OF 2023. THE COURT HAS RESCINDED THOSE. AND VANESSA K JONES SHALL EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED OR INSTRUMENT CONVEYING ANY RIGHT TITLE OR INTEREST TO ROOSEVELT JONES SENIOR IF NEEDED, FOR PURPOSES OF OBTAINING MARKETABLE OR INSURABLE TITLE. SHOULD VANESSA K JONES FAIL OR REFUSE TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED? AS CONTEMPLATED HERE AND THEN UPON REQUEST BY THE PLAINTIFF? THAT'S ROOSEVELT JONES, SENIOR. THE COURT MAY ENTER AN ORDER
[00:40:03]
APPOINTING AN INDIVIDUAL TO EXECUTE SUCH QUITCLAIM DEED OR INSTRUMENT ON BEHALF OF VANESSA K JONES. PURSUANT TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THE JUDGMENT FURTHER IS INTENDED TO VEST IN ROOSEVELT JONES, SENIOR THE AFOREMENTIONED PROPERTIES. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE HIM BASED ON THIS COURT ORDER DATED 24TH JULY 2026 BY JUDGE WATERS. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE HIM ON THE THE NOTICE. SO YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO NOTICE HIM AS WELL. AND I THINK ALSO BASED ON THE COURT ORDER, WE NEED TO GIVE HIM NOTICE OF THE VIOLATION.NOW I'VE COMBINED THAT ON BOTH CASES ARE HERE. SO WHEN WHEN YOU. YOU'RE PRODUCING TWO NOTICES OF VIOLATION. BUT BUT THIS ORDER COVERS BOTH OF THOSE.
OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. AND I WOULD I WOULD ACTUALLY INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR EVIDENCE PACKAGE THAT THE COURT ORDER. OKAY. JUST SO IT'S REAL CLEAR. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO WE'VE TAKEN CARE OF THE JUAN MIGUEL MATEO. DECEASED. CASE. THAT'S THAT. AND THAT TAKES US TO CASE NUMBER SIX ON THE DOCKET. IT'S 260110. FOR THE PROPERTY AT 15797 SOUTHWEST WARFIELD BOULEVARD, AND IT'S THE CIRCLE K STORES, INC. AND WHAT'S THE STORY THERE? SO I SPOKE WITH THE CONTRACTOR. THEY'VE APPLIED FOR THEIR PLUMBING PERMITS. IT WAS APPROVED. WE'RE JUST WAITING ON FEES AND THEN IT WOULD BE COMPLIED. OKAY. AND I SEE IT'S AN AFTER THE FACT.
CORRECT. WHAT DID THEY DO? YES. SO THEY THEY REPLACED THE PLUMBING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING. OKAY. SO THEY DID SUBMIT THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED AND WE'RE JUST WAITING ON FEES.
ALL RIGHT. SO THIS GOES TO THE SEPTEMBER. 15 15TH. YES.
OKAY. AND THAT'S IT. RIGHT. THAT IS IT. ALL RIGHT. AND YOU HAD. HOW MANY. 1212 COMPLIED CASES. WOW. THAT'S THAT'S GREAT WORK. OKAY. GOOD. ALL RIGHT. NEXT MONTH.
WHERE ARE WE STILL HERE, RIGHT? YES, YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GOOD. SO WE WILL HOPEFULLY SEE
[5) NEXT HEARING DATE]
EVERYBODY. SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2026 HERE AT THE OLD INDIAN RIVER STATE COLLEGE BUILDING. AND.BOB SOUZA, THE BOB SOUZA CENTER AT 15655 SOUTHWEST OSCEOLA.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.