Please standby for realtime captions. >> >>> Call to order , 11 2118.  >> Will call 

we will go through any agenda changes .  There is an addendum that you should  have  and there is  an addendum but no  other changes.  

With  that, any members have any export  take communications ?  

I hear none and none for myself. The next item is  approval of the minutes  for October 3 and October 17. Those  were emailed and they are available  for review. Is there approval ?  

Yes. Are we handling them together?  

Yes. Moved by Pete and 2nd by  Don?  

Motion carries.  

Next we will do the real 
     -- redo the orders of compliance.  Please -- please silence any devices  that you may have with you. That  includes members appear as well.  

All right. We'll go through the cases and take a roll call of those who are  here and then we will hear those  cases first. Then we will go back  to the cases that no one is present  for.  We will get everybody in and out  of here as efficiently as possible.  

All right. On page 2 201-7234 Rena Akhtar  order of compliance. The top of  page 3 can terrorists order of compliance . CB 201-8341 Terry  filter order of compliance with the compliance date  of October 28, 2018.  

The next one is  Kevin Benton order of compliance with a date  of November 7, 2018. In the addendum with the only  other one. On the  addendum CB 201871 Robert Sanchez order  of compliance. 

I  move that we issue the  appropriate orders of compliance previously met -- for  previously mentioned cases.  

Moved by Harry and seconded by  Don. Any discussion?  

All in favor say I . Motion carries. If you're here,  please signify and let us know that  you are here  we will keep track of those and  then go back through those cases  in the order that people are present  first. The first is CB  201632 Michael O let . Then  201-7199 
     Ruth Anderson James and  Cheryl men's. I apologize on these names.  >> The next one is  still there 
     and looks like a former member and  now it is LH Granger  trust.  

All right. 
     Janice Potter. CEB2018283-BURIGO JOSEPH J & JANET  P CEB2018287-CRICHE KATLIN KAY CEB2018297-SPENCER ROBIN & CHARLES  L FUTCH Thank you Rebecca trip ? CEB2018328-DUNAWAY DEANNA G CEB2018389-NIEMI JACK H 
     CEB2018149-SHAFER MYRON CEB2018151-ANCONA BEACHSIDE LLC Thank you.  

 Robert Hume CEB2018280-HUFF GEORGE F O CEB2018310-YOKELL CAROLE & MAX  J  thank you.  

CEB2018366-FREEHOLD  PROPERTIES INC Robert Jones and Wendy Fletcher. CEB2018377-FRANK EUGENE  D SR  Thank you 

Lee gold born . Thank you. EJ Richards holdings thank you. >> Ivan Gray . >> Data McAuliffe Andrew BARBARO Lawrence Decker .  Thank you.  >> 
     Orval and Patrick Russell. CEB2015082-BOHLEN WILLIAM  F . Thank you. Rocco PICERNO CEB2017395- HOWARD GIDGET & PELLICER  VIRGINIA & VEEN ELIZABETH right is there anybody here for  case and you did  not hear your name called?  

Okay. So I have Brian Potter  on the middle of page 7. If you're going  to provide  testimony you need to be sworn.  Please stand , raise your hand and turn to your  right. 
     Thank you.  >> Let's go to the bottom of  page of 5. CEB2017323-NEHME SABLE  & JAKE  I want to remind everybody that  we are starting a live  transcription for the hearing impaired online. It is more important that  we identify ourselves and speak  clearly into the microphone's. As people come up, please make  sure the microphones are turned  on. It is always important but now we have live transcription.  

Also, let's not talk on top of  each other. It will be hard to figure  out who said what.  

Yes or.  

Right stop doing that.  

Respondents may  step up.  The case before us is a hearing  to impose find  -- finds at property. We will hear from  the county and then give you an  opportunity to give us an update.  

Okay.  >> 
     I am from County code enforcement.  This case in regards a shed, carport and edition . There've  been no permit applications we begin -- propose $100 per day .  

Can we go back to that slide ?  

Which one is the subject property?  

They both are. This is before  and after.  

Okay. The carport goes over the  property line.  

They own  both properties?  

No. Just one .  

It is the one with the blue line  around it.  

Okay.  

We have set that  -- setback problems on the shed  and carport.  

It looks like they  are connected to the building on the right.  

These were both built in the  50s. At the time it  was previously owned by one family  and they built those houses long  before we had lot lines or any of  that. 
     They put these houses right next  to each other.  

So they were two separate properties  but Bill connected at the time?  

No. They were not connected.  They were right next to each other.  There was no lot line.  

The picture on the right shows  the roof.  

Go up one slide.  

That is the neighbors house.  Which is the one the neighbors, the one on the  right or the left?  

They look the same on both of  those photos.  

It looks exactly the same.  

I did that because of the addition  on the back.  

This backside,  whatever that is, garage ?  

The addition on the back he said  he was repairing or replacing something. That's what those photos are for.  

That roof section does not look  like it is connected to the property  next door.  

No. you can see in the photo  right above it. It is adjacent to.  

The car port is  theirs. The White House next-door is the garage for the  neighbor.  

The roof does not connect to  the building.  

No.  

Okay.  

Name and address for the record  please?  

My name is NEHME I bought this for my kids. I agree ,  I did build the addition. I heard  from the County and tore down. The only thing I did not tear down is the cardboard in the garage. -- Carport in the garage. If you  check earlier, the county  closed the case.  So why did they reopen it ? I  have it right here. The case was  closed. The garage was used , people were living in the garage  at the time.  There was a complaint thing people were living in the garage  and the garage did not have a permit.  The case was closed.  

To your testimony is that you  have removed --  

I did remove the addition room.  

The deck is gone . You can check it. 

All of that is gone?  

Yes. This edition is gone. There  is no more roof.  

That was just a couple of weeks ago.  

Yes.  

We had to take it down.  

We had a problem . I have a medical problem and I  was doing it myself. I was standing  on a couple of 4 x 4's.  

I will take it down.  

Okay.  >> I asked  for an extension .  

That was not permitted?  

No it was not.  

Used to be a deck. It was a deck before. I lived there for 20 years. I still  own the land but the house burned  down. I said I was buying  the deck and  she said she was not going to take down the deck  because she had a permit for the  deck.  

Okay. We need to give him a little  bit more time to go out and see  the progress that has  been made and maybe get a clarification  on what else has to be done to close  the case. Maybe we don't begin the  fine until then.  

Okay.  

Does someone need to be there?  

I will do it.  

That was taken two  weeks ago. 

The shed  or the carport?  

The carport and the deck in the  back.  >> It was  never permitted.  >> Why does the law apply to me and  not your neighbor ?  >> Because it was there since  1957.  

But  why do I need a P met -- permit ?  

Because you didn't need a  permit then.  >> I am the building code administrator.  I believe this is why we are still  here today. Margaret has been trying  to explain what is required and  there is a difference of opinion  as what needs to be done to come  into compliance. At this point we  have a:, a carport and a shed that  are all without permit in 1995 we  have permit records and there are  no records of these being printed  in 1995. They need to be permitted  or removed. Permitting is going  to be an issue because there is  a setback issue.  

Either apply for our permit and  you would have to seek a variance  to encroach or remove them. We have had building permit requirements and  zoning requirements since then. There is a legal nonconforming  structure next-door that predates  that. Yours post dates that. 

So I can get the permit after the fact?  

Yes.  

I'll do that.  

Is your intent to  get permits or tear them down?  >> You're gonna have  a problem getting a permit . Exactly.  

The carport  and the shed.  

Yes. It goes over the lines .  

There is also separation issue. 

Would it make sense for you to get  together with building officials  today, see what needs to be done  and see if there are any things  that you are contemplating that  cannot be permitted and just have  a clear indication before you leave  today of what you need to do?  

We will do it. But what I said -- what I'm saying is once you  get together with them and find  out what needs to be done as of  today.  

Here is what is really before  us, it has not  come into compliance. There are  some issues  to bring it into compliance. My  feeling at this point is that we  are going to rule  on the case. It appears to me that  the evidence shows it is still in  noncompliance. We will give you  some time to bring it into compliance  and you have a couple of avenues  to pursue. If you want to leave  what is there, you have to go to  a variance. 
     You need to be advised on how likely  you are to get that. It may not  be very likely. The next one is  an after-the-fact permit. You have a process to follow.  If you can provide evidence and  information that is justifiable  to the building department for permit ,  you will get it and be in compliance.  Otherwise , what I need is a timeline for  this. You had a December 40 days to start a fine.  

January , we will do it. 

All right. 
     What about January 17?  

Okay. I am ready  for motion. That will give you a  few months.  

One question . Why did the county closed  the case?  

I don't have any idea .  

Some of your information that  you will bring in your process,  we just hear the information for  us and make an informed decision.  

This was not the same case, it  was not for the same thing. Nobody  is here other than Debbie from when this was. There is no recollection. 
     Right now we have violations in  front of the board as far as staff  is concerned.  

Presently we close the case once there  is something to cure the violation. I will say always but rarely is  there case closed and the violation  is not cured. That's  very rare. We would not let a carport stand  because we gave up on it.  

There has to be engineering drawings or something.  

 If I get the permit,  if I have to do a  seven foot easement, right?  

Yes. 
     It's not our responsibility to tell  you how to do this.  You have to work this out at the  building department.  

We deal with the violations , are they still present, are you  working toward a solution. If not,  we begin the fines. To cure these  violations you need to go to  the ones that permit center and  building permits.  

Okay. I just wanted to give you  my point of view. That  is the way goes. Thank you very  much. Thank you.  

We have a motion?  

I move that this case , based on  what we have heard today that we  establish a fine of $50 per day to begin on January  17, 2019 and run until  compliance is achieved with a cap of  $5000.  

All right. Any further discussion I'm sorry. We need a  second.  

Vicki has seconded this. Any  further discussion?  >> Motion carries. Right. There  is some time to get a solution in  the works. Much  obliged.  

Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving. 

Happy Thanksgiving to you.  

The next case is Brian and  Janice Potter. Hearing to oppose a fine for cabana  and shed at  their property. >> I am from  code enforcement. In April 2018 this was found in  noncompliance. The review board  hardened it and he has a variance  to go through. 
     Staff recommendation is impose  the fine .  >> Good morning. Brian Potter .  

We received  a letter  about three weeks ago requesting a third-party engineer  from the building department. 
     I basically, no disrespect anybody,  I'm wondering what is the reason  for that ? I'm not saying I'm not going to  do it. I have done everything that  the board and everybody has asked  me to do. Every -- every time I think it's going to move forward,  I have to do something else. It was hard enough to  find one engineer. I have gotten  everything done and now I have to  get another engineer to look over  the plans of the first engineer?  

The person to ask would have  been the person who sent you the letter. We can't tell  you why. If you were given the will  letter three weeks ago you should  have contacted the person that sent  you the note.  

I did. I am just wondering, is this  a normal practice, where  is it on the books?  

Again, this is the wrong board . If you are appealing there it decision you need to be going  to the appeals board and say  the decision is not in compliance with the building  code. At this point we have a violation  and you are told  what you needed to do to cure it  and you disagree with that?  

I'm not being disrespectful, I'm bringing  it to the board to ask a question.  Expense wise this is been astronomical.  I understand that we did not permit  it. The building has been up for  18 years.  

This board has no knowledge of  that letter. We can't comment on  a letter that we have no knowledge  of. We could recommend more time because  you are making progress. Those details are nothing to do with you?  

They are on a parallel track.  You may be cured because everything is cured on  that track. Because you got everything done and you get the permit after the  fact, this is a recommendation to  give you until March 20 because  they see progress being made.  

Okay. We definitely appreciate  all that. This might not be anything  of your concern either but if we  have to get a variance because of  the height of the building, I think  it's one foot three inches. Is that  not your area either?  

It is not.  

So I needed additional survey,  which is more money and we are to  have a sense permit.  

There are ways to appeal with regards  to that. That is not this group  though.  

This group is carrots and  sticks. We try to entice you to  do the right thing we encourage  you or there is a fine if you don't. 
     We just want compliance. I understand.  

My wife and I are definitely  trying to do the best to be in compliance.  >> So here are the people that you need to contact in order to do that.  

Thank you. You are welcome.  

I will move that  this case , as a result of the evidence we have a three 
     variance. There are two cases here.  

Will have one case. This is only one case . There should be  two cases?  

We only have one case.  

All right go -- all right. Moved  by Harry and seconded by Don. Opposed, rights are. 
     Motion carries.  

All right. Robin Spencer and Charles such . All right. We will hear from the  county and then we will give you an  opportunity to speak if you would  like to give us an update on the  information.  

And from code enforcement. This  is an additional -- addition to a mobile home and  found to be in noncompliance. There  was an electrical affidavit submitted  but the power had to be turned off  for a couple of days then they have had power turned back on. There  have been no permit applications  to date. Staff has recommended an  order of $100 per day with a cap of $2800.  

So this change is from $50-$100.  All right. Any questions from the  staff?  

Okay. Now your name and address for the  record added update?  >> We started building  it but were just gonna tear down. I'm  not sure what was going on. I got the electrical affidavit.  There is no electric that has ever  been there. There is no plumbing.  We had started building it and then  we got that we were not supposed  to. I quit. The guy who is building  it was -- he is gone. I don't  know what to do. I have people that  are going to come and help me take  it down. It was just going to be  a go-between, a breezeway .  Right now I don't know what we should  do. I know we are going to start  tearing it down. 

How long do you think it will  take to tear down?  

A couple months ?  Is it too long?  

Typically it's easier to take down if  you can find somebody to do it.  

Right. I  have several people that are going  to come and help me.  >> Do they need a demolition  permit?  

I don't have that.  

You don't need a  demolition permit to remove  what was never permitted to begin  with. That will cure the violation.  

The two photos , left and center are from 2016.  The photo on the right is from earlier  this summer.  

Yes.  

Yes.  >> My name is Sue deal. 
     This is my sister. The only thing  that is new is the new wood that you  see. All of the rest of it was there.  He used to be it was to old rooms  with a porch between it. That was  put there years ago. What her  friend tried to do was remodel everything  and build it into something that  is not.  

 Did have a roof on it before?  

Yes. It had a flat roof. They wanted a path. It was not attached because  of an insurance thing at the time.  

Okay. They  are willing to come into  compliance and with the --  what is the desire of the board?  

We could set of fine down the  road or we can amend it.  Let's get --  give them some time.  >> They will remove it and bring it  into compliance. There is no electrical  issue. It is a shame that that could not have been permitted  to begin with. It  looks like the construction was  right. Since you are going this  way  >> Another 60 days?  

That would be fine.  

That would take us into January. We will issue --  let's go for March.  

All right. 
     That was where I was going, and  amended order to establish this  impost fine.  

Do we have a second?  

Is that a second?  

That is a second . Any further discussion?  

All those in favor ? Opposed?  >> All right. Make  progress.  

Thank you.  

All right. Just call me let me  know.  

Okay.  

Thank you both.  

Okay. Next is in Kona Beachside LLC.  

All right. Possible violation of chapter 58 maintenance ordinance . In properly maintaining a structure.  It is a single-family residence  on South Atlantic Avenue in Port  Orange. There is a gentleman standing  before me. Your name and address  and your relationship to the LLC  and you can test?  

I am not here to contest . I want to comply.  

Either way, we are here to help you. My name  is Leonard Conard Junior in Port Orange Florida. This is one of my corporations.  My mother owns it. 
     She is 80 years old. I handle pretty  much all of her corporations. She  could not be here today.  

All right. We will hear from  the County and they will share with  us the  evidence they have gathered. Then we will  have questions for the staff possibly  and then you can give us an update.  

Right. Code enforcement we had a complaint about this property  in disrepair. The roof was in bad  shape. We gave a servant -- certified notice  of violation. 
     She was told she could have a 30  day extension and keep all of us  informed. Staff has spoken to [ Inaudible ]. He said he  was getting a roof permit. It was submitted and then  canceled by the roofing company.  The conditions  remain unchanged. We would resolute -- make  a resolution of condemnation.  

It would be demolished?  

That would be the goal.  

Okay.  

Any other questions?  

Okay.  Yes sir.  >> That synopsis was fairly accurate.  

The only thing that she said  that I didn't know is that you had  a conversation with my mother.  

Those a year ago.  

I didn't know that.  

My mother neglected to tell  me that.  >> Yes. The property that you  see is not in compliance. We purchased that about 10 years ago.  It looks exactly the same. We tried to comply with the County 
     and inform the county and talk to  the County. We did know exactly  what to do with it. It looks a  mess. My initial thought was we  would just demolish the property.  Someone told us later on, I said let me go to the county  and I will go down there.  

It's only the second time I have  been to this building.  

I spoke to the young lady and  she said that I could redo the roof.  

I said okay. I talked to some  contractors and I let her know to  keep me in  contact. Then the  roofing contractor said he was denied.  He said it was not an issue with  the County had an issue with it.  He broke off the permit. Then time  went by and we had another issue or  another letter to come to a hearing.  We are just trying to comply. I  did talk to a gentleman named Brett Fretwell. He said we can  do the roof but if you want to remodel  the house you should probably demo the house.  Everyone would probably like that.  Yesterday he put in the house --  permit to demolish the house. That is where  we are. Here is the application  that he sent me yesterday.  

Okay.  

That is where we are . I don't know how long it takes  to get the permit done and how long it takes  to actually demo the house. We are  though trying to comply.  

Any questions?  

It's a done deal.  >> It'll be beautiful when were done  with it but today it is not cured.  

It seems like the best thing  to do would issue an amendment order and then  all this paperwork will  --  >> We can't amend the order .  

Right.  >> I am in the last phase of  this.  

Okay. I'm ready for motion.  

Based on the testimony we find the violation and we set a  compliance date of 
     January 17 because I have that date  in front of me excuse me , a hearing to impose fine 
     on January 16, 2019. 

I second that.  

Moved and seconded. Any discussion. The motion carries.  

I didn't follow your recommendation 
     because this will take care of it.  

Bright.  

All right. Get the guy with the  cruncher and tell him January 17  is the deadline.  

That is my deadline.  

All right. Have a nice holiday.  

You the same.  

 Okay. All right. 
     Let's move on. Carol and Max yokel. Possible violation chapter 58  article 1 maintenance ordinance  to properly maintain structure with a crumbling  retaining wall. This is 19 silks  Oak Drive. This is a couple of people standing before  me.  

Good morning.  

I am the daughter . I live at  the premises and 
     I only have pictures on my phone.  

Are you here to provide information  or contest that there is no violation?  

I have been died -- denied access to the property  to repair it.  

All right. We will hear from  the county and then we will give  you an opportunity and we also have technology to try to show your  photos on your phone through a video  overhead, if necessary.  

All right hang tight. We will  hear from the county.  

Excuse me. Ms. Baker needs to  be sworn in.  

Okay.  

Where you here for swearing in?  

It not, you need to be  sworn in. Okay. Thank you.  Go ahead. He was here for  the swearing in. He said hello. He raised his hand when  I was doing roll call. I remember  him from earlier.  

All right. I am from code enforcement. On May 24 we got a complaint from a neighbor about a crumbling retaining wall  between the property. On May 25 I did an inspection. On June  7 a June -- a certified note was received and signed for. I received  a call from her. She could not get on the property to see the damages. She said she can't get on  the property because it does have  a locked gate. There been  no permit applications to date and conditions remain unchanged. 

Who is in the property now ?  

Me.  

You are refusing yourself?  

You're saying that  you can go on the property ?  

No. the gate is locked. I have  a message from the owner . I will leave the gate unlocked  until the day before court  which was supposed to be 21 November. I went several times with the contractor  in the gate is locked. I was there  yesterday and it is still locked.  Who is the owner?  

Maybe I can clarify. The wall  you're looking at, the fence is on 
     her side of the wall. When she says  she doesn't have access the fences  between the wall and her  even though the retaining wall is on her property.  That is what you are looking at.  You are in the neighbors yard is  where Margaret took this picture from.  It is confusing when you first -- it is confusing when you first  look at it.  

Do we have a survey?  

No.  >> It is not disputed whose property the wall is on.  Both parties agree that it is on her property  is just not maintained.  

Did they  not remove a fence panel to address  the wall?  

That would be an option.  >> This is abutting the  property line and it is six feet  up. The retaining wall is three  feet high and then has a six foot I  stockade fence. So in order  to take the fence down 

Just  a section of the fence, not the  entire fence.  >> The gate has  been locked . In order to fix that I was still  have to go on his property , even if I took the fence down  I have to go on his property. 

Is the retaining wall not accessible  from your side of the property?  

No.  

The view that you see now is  in his backyard. 

What is on your side of the wall ?  

Just land . It sits up high.  He actually has about 9.5 feet  in his backyard.  9 1/2 feet of what?  

The height.  

This fence is about 3.5 feet.  

 The retaining wall is on your property?  

Yes it is. In the fences on your property?  

Yes it is. And you want to go  on your prompt -- his property to  assess the condition of the wall ?  

Yes.  

My experience as an engineer doing this type of work is that 
     you have to keep it all on your  property. You have to imagine there  is a clear , plastic wall on the  property line between the two. You  have to accomplish any work you  have to accomplish within the confines  of your lot, unless you have an  agreement from a neighbor allowing  you to come on site. That's usually called a construction  easement. A temporary right to use  that property to do the work. If  you have a friendly neighbor, you  may get that otherwise you may not.  If you have a violation and it appears  the lower three courses of block look okay. Just the same, in order to accomplish  that, without the help of  the neighbor, you have to  remove the section of fence , some courses of block and then replace those sections  of fence. That is the normal course  of action for you to remain on  your property and accomplish that  work. If your neighbor will go along with you, that's  going to make it easier for your  contractor to come in and repair  that wall.  

Okay?  >> I would like to have it  unlocked until 20 November.  

What I suggest you do is some  written correspondence. I would  like to have access to that so that your contractor can  come in and repair the wall. You  understand it is your responsibility  and you are willing to do that.  Then have a written response from  him that gives you the ability to  do that and then, have it left unlocked so you can  actually do that. It is just a suggestion.  It is a telephone call and nobody  has a record of anything. 
     Right. I do not have a number for  him.  

It appears that what we have  before us is a crumbling retaining  wall. You did say that you agree it is  your responsibility to repair. It  seems like you have a little bit  of trouble getting in there to do  it. It doesn't appear to be imminent  danger. I don't think time is of  the essence. In order to keep things  moving along, it appears that there is a violation and you  are willing to fix it and you are  going to need some time to do that.  Over --  you may have to overcome a few hurdles.  I'm not sure how you're going to  do that, good luck with that. With  the County have any problem -- well we have a hearing.  

This is a new case.  

I think Mr. Wheeler is standing  back there and would like to speak.  

Okay.  

He is the neighbor we have been  talking about.  

That's fine.  

Okay. Here we go. There is the neighbor.  

My name is Walter Scott Wheeler.  I live in Florida. My wife says I  yell at everybody but I think it's  my hearing aids. Excuse me. This  is our beach house. My full name  is Walter Scott Wheeler on Nicolette  court in Clermont  Florida.  

There are a few inadequacies and inaccuracies in what Joyce is shown you.  Let me tell you my perception. During hurricane Matthew, in 2016  the retaining wall between my property and hers was seriously damaged. The  wall cracked and shifted in several  places and several blocks fell into  my backyard. Are these the only  photos you took?  

To have the ones where the wall  was cracked all the way down?  

Not that. Those of  the blocks.  

I don't think we have an issue with finding the crumbling wall .  

It's more serious than the pictures .  

Between October 2016, the time  of Matthew and may,  2018 I showed Joyce, the owner the condition of the wall one day when I was in  the yard and she came by and she  looked at it. Besides that one occasion I talked  to her three different times on  the telephone. Each time I asked  her for a date on the status  of the wall. Her response was, -- my concern was the wall was  unsafe. If I have children in the  backyard or the dog or someone working , those blocks as you can see have  already fallen off . I was asking if there were other  pictures because there are some  severe cracks in the wall  is actually leading about 20 degrees  into my yard. Every time I  talked to Joyce , those four times she told me the  repairs were taking so long because the insurance  company would not agree with the  cost estimate of the repairs provided  by the owner. That is a critical  fact.  >> 
     Out of frustration, in May 2018 I  contacted the building and zoning  compliance department and expressed  my concern about the safety of the  retaining wall. The compliance officer visited the property and inspected  the wall and validated the complaint  and set a certified notice of violation.  Several days later the zoning compliance  officer advised me that she had  spoken to them I don't know  if that was the owner or to Joyce . It was Joyce.  Okay.  

On June 19 they said they had to check with the insurance  company about getting that fixed. On September 14, 2018 I was advised by Margaret that  the mother of the  property owner said she needed to  get into my backyard with a contractor  to do -- to determine the extent of damage  to the wall and my tenant would not let her in the backyard.  I find this interesting because  in four prior conversations I had  with her it was not being able to have access to the  property as a reason it was because  the owner and insurance company  could not agree on a price. I told -- that is what Margaret told me  in September 2018. This story of not having access to my yard was just an excuse for the delay.  This is why . My property is not a rental property.  It is a private residence that is  used only 50% of the time by myself ,  my wife, my daughter, her family  and visitors from up north. 50%  of the time is occupied and 50 present  of the time it is not. There was no family that  denied her access to the backyard.  It would've had to be one of my  family. They would have granted  her access. If they didn't they would have at least said to me that the lady behind you  once access to the wall. I would've  gladly given that to her. So in  fact, as a result of what Margaret  told me I left the mother a phone message  that I would be leaving the gate  open from September 15 to  October 12 . It had nothing to do with the  date that she said she heard. I  did that reluctantly. If anybody wanted to get in there  and got hurt, I could've had a lawsuit. I immediately had it locked up  on the 12th and it has not been  unlocked since then. In addition, I would like to reiterate that  the mother told me on several occasions  that the delay, she never mentioned  the delay had anything to do with  access to the property.  It was always some ongoing argument  about -- between the owners and insurance company. I would have  given her access at any time.  

You are not the violator. I don't  know why , so here we are. Because of all  this delay it has come to us. We  are -- you are the owner of the adjacent property  and complaint . So we have the respondent here  who has shared with us testimony  that she will repair it. She doesn't  question that it is her wall. She  was to get a contractor in there  to repair it. So because of all  these delays you have experience,  that is why it has come to us. Most  of these things get cured and they don't come to us. We don't  see retaining walls very often.  

The cooperation was there. She  never asked for it. All right. We understand that.  Right now the situation is  that you have granted permission  to come onto the property. I would've  had someone meet her there .  

I understand.  

If you can work something out at an appropriate time so you can  do that and get your contractor  and then we can move ahead with  everything.  

It looks like it will take a  little bit of time .  

May I make them comment?  

This is her property. I have already  gone through 
     what she needs to do to fix it.  He gives additional testimony about  access to the backyard. That is  essentially irrelevant to this case. There is a  difference of opinion of who is  letting whom in. Now how you can  assist would be to grant her access when a permit comes in for the  wall, etc. You must apply  to fix  the wall. Auxiliary do that is your neighbors willingness to give  the contractor access  to fix it. That is for you two to  work out on the side. As far as  this case and where we are on it,  I have all the evidence that I need  to make a motion in the case. Mr. Wheeler gave us some testimony  about the angle of the wall. That  adds a little bit more time frame. It did not show in  that picture , that  does not mean that that is not true.  So what was the timeframe you called  for, December?  

The compliance process  would begin if a person -- permit  has been issued. That December date is reasonable.  Ms. Baker, has your contractor shared  with you how soon he could apply  for a permit. We tried to go over there. I have  a message from him  from September 19 stating he would leave the  gate open.  

I am aware.  We are down to,  the only way that you have control over this project is from  your parcel. I realize it is much  easier if the contractor can walk  next-door. If that doesn't seem  to be working out, then you need to take the sections  of the fence also that he can look  at it and he will have to do that  when he does the wall anyway. Regardless  of the correspondence you have from  your neighbor upon access, that  really is not pertinent to the case  before us. What is before us is  the wall on your property.  

I still have to go on to his  property to fix it.  

 You don't.  

That is an option . You don't have to do that. I personally recommend that you  don't have a contractor on his property. 
     I would try to keep this within  your property.  

Is just my opinion, not legal  advice.  

Look at the picture that was provided.  

I am ready for motion . We have a crumbling wall. We have  to set a timeframe to get this resolved.  That is what this board does.  

I have had the contractor there  are three different times. 

It is obvious that you are trying  to solve this. That is not an issue. 
     What we have is evidence before  us of whether there is a violation  which is related. Everybody says that there is. Now  we find a violation and we give  you time to respond to that and  follow the process. 

Just  a minute.  >> I'm  sorry. I had a member who wanted  to interject.  

Continue please.  

I make a motion that we file recommendations for  noncompliance and a hearing to impose fines of  1219 
     2018.  

I will second that.  

That is one week.  

That is December. That is one  month.  

That is one week.  

I'm sorry.  >> 

Would you amend that . Let's do March.  

All right. March 21 2019.  

We will have  a compliance date five or six days  before that okay.  

All right. March 15. Everybody agrees with that?  

Yes.  

All right. Motion by Vicki and 2nd  by Harry. All those in favor say  I and opposed , motion carried.  

All right. Be in communication  on how you are making progress on  getting permission for a 
     retaining wall.  

All right. Have a good day. Happy  Thanksgiving.  

All right. Next case is on page  13. Eugene Frank. Possible 
     violation of chapter 72 -- to.  Junkyard were not permitted. 

Mr. Frank, your name  and address for the record. 901 Shire Road in Daytona.  >> 
     Are we going to handle both cases  at the same time?  

Yes.  

All right. There is a possible  violation article to section 72 871 
     parking motor Cabret -- motor vehicles  on the front yard.  

Mr. Frank, do you wish to provide information or contest?  

No. what we will do is here  from the county staff and then we will get an update  from you. Thank you.  >> All right. I am from code enforcement.  I received a complaint about trucks  parked in the side yard. July 20  the inspection confirmed violation. He received  a notice to appear. This is the first  time I have spoken to him at all . The conditions remain unchanged -- unchanged of -- as of a couple of weeks ago. Just for  a side note, I do not recommend  gravel for a driveway. That does  not count.  

All right. This is slide five.  

That is a side yard.  >> Then if you go up, where the white  car is, that is the driveway.  

Yes. That  has gravel. The rest of it is the junk.  

He is on a corner lot and that  is the side yard.  

So in slide 4 that is not the vehicle violation?  

No. that would be the truck .  

I'm sorry I'm taking all the  good questions today.  

Yes.  

I little trouble with that truck.  I had it towed in and they put it  there. They were going to put some stuff done  to it. A guy wants to buy it. I  could've added in the front, where  my car is. It is beyond where  the County will clean the  right away . There is offense there. I am  behind the fence. That is  not junk. That is  a hauling truck. I own a hauling business.  

The truck you are in the process of selling?  

Okay.  

Then I presume  this is our definition  is junkyard. It may not be junk.  

It's all gone.  >> Under the carport?  

No. that belongs to Julia . She didn't get out of there.  I told her she's been  trying to sell -- sell some stuff.  I do a lot of work and I  give a lot of stuff away.  

Everything is done. I have an  attorney. There is some question  as to whether I own this or not. Monica Wilson is  the attorney . I will know  420 days with them going to be there moving  out. Either way there will be nothing  there after 120 days.  

All right. We recommend that 
     everything be cleaned up and the  truck be sold by January 2. Is that  a good date for you?  

It is.  

All right. What is the desire  of the board?  

I will move that these cases we find both cases in violation  and set a  hearing to impose fines for January  16 
     with a compliance date of January  5.  

All right January 5?  

Okay. You have until January  5.  

All right. All those in favor  say I and opposed say Nay. Motion carries. Happy new  year.  

You as well.  

All  right. The next case is  legal burden.  

Okay.  >> It is a new  case although we had this last month. By  -- possible violation a rear porch with roof  over a new tile roof at  1115 W. New York Avenue. All right. Name and address for  the record. Do you wish to provide  information or contest?  >> I believe I am here to provide  information.  

Just stay right there and we  will hear from Mr. Hooper. Ahead.  

Good morning.  

Chris Hooper for code compliance.  This is a reroof -- reroof without  a permit. A  notice of violation was sent out in 2017 and received . Notice to appear was sent out and received. There was supposed to be a jobsite  meeting take place  to determine if a permit was supposed  to happen or not. It did not happen.  It was not required. I have more pictures this time  to illustrate showing the difference  from prior roof, before . To now.  

We also have a picture one slide 4 that was taken  by an inspector who  captured the re-work in effect.  

Why did we continue this? What  was the issue?  >> There was a question whether or  not a permit was required. We did  not have enough photographs to delineate. We were going to have a site meeting.  That did not take place.  Then we decided to permit was required.  

Regardless  it still requires  a roof permit. 

It  is still required to  meet code . Any questions  of staff?  

Yes.  

All right. So  I said this the last time which was about a porch originally.  I tore that down to comply. Then , they said have an inspection and I had to  go to the Panhandle to work.  When I got back I came back and  I took all the tiles off . That is where it is. I have a  picture of that if you need to come out and inspect  it or anything like you did with  the porch, I can show them that.  

All right. So back on slide 3 all the tiles are gone?  

The ones over the carport are  original tiles that I never touched. They are just the overhangs that  you put.  

Okay.  

 I still have possession of them  but they are off.  >> So presently it looks more  like the left slide ?  

Yes.  

I am waiting for my turn.  

So the processes that you have  the tiles off. Now you are starting  from scratch and getting a permit?  

Yes. Once you have applied for  the permit then you can take your  tiles .  

You just have to apply for that  permit. They can't inspect something without  a permit.  

Right. If you want to inspected  to verify that they were off .  

What we will do, it seems some  things have happened but they have  not had an opportunity for the county to do that. We will  give you time down the road to take  care of it. It is in process. Seems like we are throwing a lot  of stuff out to March. Maybe  we should have something to do in  February.  

This may be -- the work is done. That means we give two weeks for somebody to go out  and look.  

What we see -- 
     say has nothing. We are reviewing  whether it has been a violation. You have to get  a permit before anybody will come  look at it. They don't just come  and say the tiles 
     are there.  

He doesn't have a permit.  

He undid the tile work.  

He took out the  violation.  

We have to verify that.  

But about the roof on the porch  in the back ? Is that leaking?  

No. That was a rebuild of a rotted  out porch. That was the original  violation. I was going to  dried it with the tiles but then  the porch was gone. 

It sounds like we need a permit  to cure this. We backed up from what we said  the next meeting.  I recall a whole different set of testimony at the last meeting.  This just say we need a permit and  get -- give  him time to get a permit and that  will cure the violation.  

Excuse me. That is where I was  going. The discussion circled around installation of the tile being  the violation. If one removes the  tile, one has removed the violation.  If you need to put it back up you need a permit. If you don't  put the tile up you don't need a  permit.  

I don't know what is going on.  I think we have done reroof without  a permit to repair a problem on  the porch. Then we were going to  put tile on it to make it pretty.  

I believe that is where we are.  

I know testimony was different  at the last meeting.  

All right. Anything else?  

We just need to find this in compliance. When we come back with a  hearing to impose fines that could  be resolved.  >> The original violation was the  fort -- porch framing out from scratch.  I tore the old wood off. I framed  up a new one at the same size. That  is what he busted me for. The tiles  were on the overhang on the front  and this was attached. I got another violation. I know I have to get  a permit. That is why I'm here.  I am going to do the tiles and the  porch on -- all under a new permit. I  just don't want to get any fines  or anything like that.  

Let me go back. Let's say not  a permit at all. Let's have a site  meeting and impose a fine if that does  not take place.  

We're two  months into this and we still don't  know what is going on out there.  

We can continue this for month. Are you going to be  around?  

Yes. So what is the December  meeting ?  

Would you rather do January?  

I don't care.  

Let's continue either January  16 or December , whatever that date would be?  

December 19 is  when I think we  should continue this.  

Okay. Any second or further discussion?  

I was  preferring January. Whatever I have  to do.  >> Is this a site meeting?  

How hard  is it to get somebody out there  to look at your house. We are setting a site meeting within  one month one hour within one month.  

Okay.  

Moved by  Pete and 2nd by Harry. All right. That motion carries.  

So that is the 19th do I need to schedule a time?  >> You assess the situation and find  out what it is. If you apply for  a permit that will make a big difference.  

You're going to do that anyway.  

No fine yet.  

All right. Thank you.  

Thank you .  

Okay. A couple of cases. Richards 
     possible violation chapter 22 -- two construction without required permits at East  Taylor Road. The second  case involves  the same chapter and section for an accessory or the change  of use of a storage structure. One  is construction and what is change  of use.  

Mr. Watts?  

Yes.  

Mark Watts I will here on behalf of EJ Richards holding LLC.  

I have information.  

 The nursery retail building was  constructed without a permit. We also have a change of  use from storage structure to assembly  without inspection. Property was posted on December 7. They have  pictures showing the nursery.  

Then, on additional slides I  have included some advertising and  pictures from the website showing  the barn is not being used as a  barn, it is being used for wedding  venues and events and such.  

Did we see this for a driveway?  

We did, back in March or May.  

Okay.  >> So staff recommends noncompliance . Which was the building that  was constructed without permit?  

Slide number 2, the nursery. 

That entire structure?  >> Yes. The entire structure.  

Then the barn is an existing  structure. Its use has changed.  

That is on slide 4.  

That is beautiful.  >> 
     Any questions?  >> The barn did  have a permit.  They changed the use it was permitted  for. It was agricultural reasons  and then they decided  to host wedding events there. They  used --  

The other building is a nursery and  scratch building.  

All right. I understand .  

All right. 
     Enlighten us.  

Okay.  

For the record 
     Mark Watts.  

I appreciate your time. This  is one that you have seen here before.  We had a connection to Taylor Road  without the required use permit.  We have been in continual discussion  and work with County zoning staff  and the fire  department to work on this. This  is the event venue on Taylor Road. It  was constructed under accurate Tory sections. As their business increased  the staff had concerns that this  really only worked for old buildings. We have  agreed that how -- that is how the statute reads.  We worked with staff over the course  of summer to create a new special  exception for auroral event venue.  The issue with this property is  that, as we worked up that special  exception and criteria for that  the zoning staff wanted to keep  that to 10 acres as a minimum size so it did not  open up too much property around  the county for this type of use  and properties that were smaller or closer to urban areas. That special exception criteria  has been approved. We have another  property that  is going through the process for  that special exception. We worked  with your zoning staff to 
     agree to handle everything from  the use standpoint for this property  through a PUD that will allow us to get permits  for structures on the property.  We included rural event and Admiral -- agricultural assemblies. About  two weeks ago we met with the city . The property is surrounded on  three sides by the city. One thing  that we have been working with the  County fire services about how to sprinkle the building  and make sure we have enough fire flow  in the water system.  There is a new water line that will be brought  in by a builder. In July the city adopted an ordinance saying  that if any property or project  was going to get utility services  they would not provide utility services  unless it went through annexation in the city. Now we are in  the process of applying for the  special -- the PUD rezoning in the  city. That will take -- the applications will probably  be in by Monday or Tuesday. The  same application we have already  filed with the county has to be  filed with the city so we can get  services from them to provide the  fire protection that is needed for  the structure. That will take us  at least through April to go through  that process based on the city's  published schedule. We are in that process.  In the interim the principal concern  has been fire protection and making  sure that the people attending events  out there are protected. We have  agreed to  post a fire watch at every event.  We have someone there that is specifically trained and designated to be a  lookout for fire hazards and things  of that nature. They are required  to be on site for every event. We  don't contest that these things  are violations. We don't have the  ability to get them permits. We  have been working with your staff  to get to that point. I will note  that the nursery building in the  front, we  did apply for those. Because it  is a three property and that was  agricultural use , they were told they did  not need the permit. They did not  pull a permit. Again, as it  has evolved in the use became  more 
     you require a special exception.  It is a little bit different. It  puts in the context where it is  more of a commercial use and it will require a permit. We  don't disagree with that. It just  has been an evolving set of conditions  and opinions. Our compliant -- client  has tried to get into compliance.  The target has moved a couple times.  We expect to have this wrapped up by mid April.  That is our current date with the  city. Then it will be of the land  issue.  >> When is the annexation going to  go through?  

We had to change that. We didn't  have to annex initially. Now we  do. So the application for that  should be in by next week. 
     This is a result of a meeting we  had a few weeks ago. That application  will be in sometime next week. Based on their schedule that should  put us about mid April if we keep  all of those things together.  

So we went come back here in  May and see what happens?  

I have a question about the fire .  

Have a fire watch.  How are you going to deal with that with people in there without a  sprinkler system?  

One thing we have already done  is to improve  -- the driveway was  an initial issue. We did a new stabilized roadway that has  the base sufficient to support fire apparatus. We have  improved it and the flow of that driveway through  the property so that the fire apparatus can get to any portion  of the property. We have fire watch 
     posted for every event. The closest  station is less than one mile away.  

Have you spoken with them about  the situation?  

Yes. The meeting we had with  the city included their fire marshal . The primary reason for  that meeting, there is a 50 foot  separation between the new waterline and where the barn is. Rather than  putting in a well to provide fire  flow and  tapping into an eight inch water  main, it is going  right there.  

All right. Fine.  

The driveway, other people will  not be put parked in their  -- parked in  their?  

Yes.  >> Wanted -- one of the doors like ? Is it easy egress?  

There are doors on all sides.  

They can push out?  

Or heavy and rolling ?  

There typically kept open during  an event.  

They are also -- there are also push out doors.  

All right.  

So I'm sorry. Go ahead. You  want to speak?  >> This is our chief building official.  >> A couple of things are going on.  The nursery building. I'm not sure  where the information came from  that it would not be required.  A definite permit  will be re--- built will -- will be required. The barn,  we saw a lot of concerns.  We met with  the owners back in  the spring. At that time we were  looking at bringing the building  into compliance over the summer.  They closed down for a couple months 
     and resumed operations in the fall. We were agreeable to that.  Mr. Watts has run into some roadblocks. Now  we are looking at next April before  we could possibly get this barn into code compliance  as far as the building code and fire code. There are concerns  with that. There are concerns with  the lack of sprinklers and accessibility.  There are couple of bathrooms in the barn that were not permitted.  There is a kitchen area not permitted.  Those are not accessible and do  not meet those requirements. We  have egress issues.  We have  parking issues. The building division has concerns about  this operation continuing as an assembly occupancy in a building  that is not compliant. 

Operations are continuing. They  are booked through 2019.  

That is correct.  

Having said that, that doesn't  look like the recommendations of  staff. You are looking like you  are talking about no operation until  this is resolved.  

I am voicing my concerns. You  are speaking for the county. What  is the county's recommendation?  

This is a code case.  My recommendation is if it is not compliant having  the occupancy functions at this  building continuing our in violation of the building code.  

That is pretty clear-cut. Where  do we stand?  

If I can just remind you from  our conversations, I appreciate  and understand there have been County concerns. We have invited  them on site and have them there  to look and talk through the things  that need to be done. Our client has no ability to correct  those things until the zoning issue  is resolved. We worked the life safety concerns. We have worked continuously to make  sure that those issues were  taken care of and 
     address. The understanding that  we have had until this morning was  that as long as we continue doing  those things and pursued the fixes  so that we could come through and  apply for permit that we were fine with continuing operations.  We have had that conversation with  several different 
     districts.  

I would like a determination  as to whether there is a life and  safety issue before we proceed.  

Thank you. The fire marshal has  issue -- issued conditions for events to proceed. Those conditions are being met . Assemblies are being held. There  are concerns that have been expressed  but Mr. Taylor , I don't want to put words in his  mouth but he has the authority to  be able to shut down events if there  are life safety issues for the assembly  to not be held. He is not done that.  He has required specific conditions  to be met in order to hold an assembly.  I want to put any words in his mouth as our building official but I  do not believe the staff is requesting  to stop the assembly of future events  while this proceeds. What we are  saying is that this has  gone on for a while. There have  been different things happen. The evidence shows  that there are noncompliance issues  with the code . At this time the staff is not  recommending the discontinuation of events until  these matters are resolved.  

 All right. 
     I know you are not a witness but  your client is continuing to cure  this?  

Yes. Mr. Taylor was present at the meeting  to address how we were operating  with the  conditions he has put together on  his letters to our client. He passed that information along.  

Isaac just that in April  this may change back to the  city. There are serious concerns.  Let's go for  a month and make sure everything  is on track.  

I would like to  say something.  

That was his responsibility to  bring these issues to the court.  The board needed to be aware. There are concerns. The imminent danger is being handled by Mr. Taylor. We are not  recommending shutting down operations.  We recommend everybody be aware  of what is going on and be expedient.  We do want to get an order of noncompliance . Obviously this is what we  do with other cases, once we have the life safety issues addressed  then we allow time to mitigate the violation. That is where I  would like to go with this.  

I have one question for you. From a  timing standpoint, assuming that  you go into the city, has that waterline  been built already?  

It is currently under construction. The construction  has been moving forward for the Victoria Oaks subdivision  which surrounds the property on  three sides. 

Do you have  any idea when you can tie into that  line as far as the city is concerned?  

The estimate is in the first  quarter. We believe we will be able  to tie into those lines. The question  is how do we permit that. We have  the zoning and the cart is before  the horse . I think everybody is  prepared to work together to try  to get that fire line brought over  as soon as possible. We have Horton  who has agreed to engineer and design the  lateral coming in with the connection  points up to our property line. They are going to be putting that  in with their contractor as they  move forward. We have to come in  and tie in. We anticipate sometime  within the first quarter those lines  will be going in and we will be  able to make those connections.  The thing I don't know is when will  the lines of be certified and pressurized.  They will be in, and complete.  

You need those lines to sprinkle  those buildings?  

Yes. The strategy worked out with Mr. Taylor was that the fire  watch and other conditioned outlined 
     is what we have been complying with.  

For the record, I'm uncomfortable  with continuing operation until  life safety issues are dealt with. If there were an event out there  I think there would be a lot of  questions about what in the world  we were doing doing business as  usual when things were not right. 

I understand that. I  understand that business is business.  This is not nickel and dime stuff.  

I hopefully want you to  understand that we are working with the  fire services. >> Along with our building officials , I share the  same concerns.  We share those concerns as well.  You are doing what you can but  that does not relieve me of a concern . If there's a will --  problem I'm going to say why in  the world that I do that?  

May I?  

Yes sir.  >> I think all these issues  have been covered but I'm going  to offer my opinion. As  a civil engineer and a person that  has experience with these types  of situations,  my first thought was the life safety  issues and the building code. Then  it was brought up that you have been addressing those  issues specifically and the fire  marshal or the County has worked out a plan to specifically  handle emergency situations regarding fire safety during  the interim. Obviously, an eight inch water  main is not available all the way. You are fortunate  that something like that is coming  along. I have dealt with that before.  I know the design parameters. If we come in , the way this is  going is a violation. It is  under review . By the time anything were to happen  on this case you will be moving  into that venue anyway and seeking building permits and all the other  requirements that go along with  it. We can't push this aside because of the situation but we  all know that it is moving into  a different venue shortly. More  importantly, they are addressing  each of these issues as they come  up anyway. It is in the county or city, it  doesn't matter. They will be addressed  the same way. All of those  issues.  

That is correct.  

I am ready for a motion.  

Let me make a comment.  

I know you had referenced this being standard.  I don't think what they are doing  is in anyway normal or standard  just because --  

They have addressed all of these  issues that they  can address.  >> If you had not addressed the fire  marshal issue, I would have not agreed with this. Look at how things are required  to go forward under those standards.  You don't have a building code  issue. You are using barns that  are set up as event venues.  This is going to be a better venue because of this. We have steps  that we have to go through to get  there.  

I'm not going to disagree with  you. I don't know the venue. I just  noticed safety codes. When  you change it from a barn to an  occupied usage changes how it is  reviewed dramatically because  of the life safety issues. They  built the kitchen without a permit.  >> 

They built a barn with a permit. They built a kitchen inside the  barn. As the fire retardant for  the cooking area?  

You can't get a permit to put  that in. Did they put in the fire  retardant without a permit?  

I don't have the specifics here. 

That to me is a responsible.  It says I have this kitchen. I can't do anything to bring it  up to code but you could still put  in the things to put out a kitchen  fire.  

They have taken every step with the exception of installing  sprinklers because we don't have  access.  

I understand that.  

The violation is  construction without a permit. We  recommendation is a  fine for that.  

Okay.  

There is a process to follow  to come into compliance.  >> I see on the first case where we  possibly, that one will be resolved  when they enter the city.  The second case is something we  need to hear about in the interim.  

The change comes in with zoning issues which have  been working because you can't move , you have to have zoning and compliance. That  is part of the use and review of occupancy. And what  the life codes are. Those go together.  A building permit, construction  without a permit and the change  of use. All right. If you recall,  I want to remind you of something.  When you were here on the use permit  issue with the driveway a couple  of months ago, our client committed  to you that there was a concern  with regard to the sidewalk and  the crumbling nature and traffic  coming in across that. That issue , because  they have the ability to get a permit  and you work with us very well to  say this is not -- we can't issue  a commercial permit. We have the ability to  do that. We left last time, went  upstairs, met with the right of way people  that same morning. We had a permit  in hand with to date --  within two days. Have the work done  and inspected within 10 days.  

It's a driveway. 

Everything else is more  complex.  >> When there is a path they are acting  as quickly as possible. We  need to create the path from a zoning  standpoint. We have met any requirement.  

You are doing what you can . My concern still is that we are not properly protecting  the people that are utilizing that  facility. If this board is compliant , it  doesn't make any difference they're  going to get it sooner or later,  that doesn't relieve anything.  

Just a minute. Let me finish.  

This doesn't relieve me of the  feeling that we have discovered  a life safety issue. If you are  shutting operations down until such  time as they can complete the compliance, I think that is exactly  what you need to do. Access for  a fire truck to come in as -- is  not the same as having  a sprinkler system go off immediately.  I was a general contractor. I built  industrial buildings. I know very  well the problems that we face.  This is an official standing buying here  who I think  feels uncomfortable, the same way  I do. 

I don't want to close you down  but we have a responsibility. This  is something that has been uncovered  that is very material. It is a very  big problem. Until those things  are completed, I don't think you should operate , personally.  >> All right. Anything else  to add?  >> I think it has been handled. It  has been worked out on fire safety  and thoroughly addressed. I think  that issue has been taken care of.  I make a motion for both of these that as a result of  the evidence and testimony we find nine compliant -- noncompliance  with a compliance date of April  3 and a hearing to  impose fine on April 17 and that  we have a progress report brought  to us at the January 16 meeting. 

I will second that.  

Okay moved and seconded. Any  further discussion?  

All those in favor signify  by saying I. For  the record, member Needham opposed.  

All right. The  motion carries. Thank you.  

Thank you for your time. Please  know that we do take all of the  concerns expressed very seriously. Our client is working as hard and  quickly as she can to get compliance.  

Please share the concerns of  staff and board members.  

We need to know everything that  is being done when you come back in January.  

For 30 seconds I will tell you  on our current schedule we will  have PRC, there technical  staff review on January 17. The planning board  meeting would be February 20 .  

Give us an update .  

I brought those dates up because  those are POC watch , the day after.  

Okay. We will want a progress  report.  

Thank you.  

Okay. Lawrence Decker. A violation  of ordinance junkyard  were not permitted. >> We will wait for him to come back.  

Then  a violation of the ordinance article  2 division eight maintaining an RV without 
     tags or sticker for property at  5906 John Anderson highway near  Flagler Beach . I  see a gentleman before me. Mr. Decker?  

No. I am his nephew. My name  is Andrew White.  

Okay. I'm trying to get back  on track.  

You are here to contest or provide information?  

Provide information.  

Okay. Thank you. I hope we have  a quorum here. They  can hear in the back.  

All right. So I  hope they are back when we make a vote.  

They are back. Here they come.  

All right. 
     We have a quorum.  

All right. I have a copy of the  code enforcement. Oh gosh. We received  a complaint initially back in August from an environmental person who  had to go out there for their own  issue and they said the houses were in serious disrepair. This  first slide is where the on maintained  structure comes into play. On the  right-hand side they have got tap  -- outside lights. That is how they  are plugged in. Those are  extension cords.  That is some strange latter up to  someplace, I don't know where. There are three  different buildings that people  are living in. This is building  A. The stairway to the second floor.  That is the electrical , some of the electrical to the  building. I'm not sure  -- anyway , they plug stuff in outside for  lighting and things like that. None  of this has been permitted. We posted an unsafe on  October 16. This is building B. There is  a tarp covering the entire roof.  That has its own maintenance issues  because it has been there for so  long. It is overgrown. You can see  it. That is the back of building  B. This is the side of  the building. This is all the junk.  This is another storage shelter . It is totally caving in on  itself. This is the back. There's  more stuff in here and then in other  buildings that are also falling  down. This is building C. That is  the back wall. They had people living  in it. There was no wall at all . It was tarp. This is the inside of one of the  apartments in that building. I guess  they had an issue with hurricane  Irma and if flooded that  whole area but he was still renting  this out. Here is  another outside lighting. This is one of the greenhouses.  Here's another greenhouse. Another  one. This is a storage barn that was built with a permit. They  had it -- added electricity and plumbing  and this is the gentleman that was  living in the storage barn.  

This is the electrical hookup. You can see the air conditioner.  That is the inside of that apartment .  This is a laundry area. There were  two washing machines and no drier.  None of those were permitted. I  am showing you pictures here. All  three buildings work posted to be unsecure and unsafe.  There is more junk. Every time we  go out there it's just been -- after the power  was turned out I went back out there.  He had  hooked the well up with a generator.  On the right-hand side there are  cans and cans, five gallon drums  -- drums of something that looks like pain.  I have been out with environmental  people because they had mystery  drums because they were not labeled . She believed I'm not saying this  is set in stone, some of them were  used oil and some were diesel fuel  because he did have a fuel generator. He is using that for storage. Here's  the boat with no tags. Then,  noble Taylor , one of the Fire Chief inspectors  has gone out. He did an inspection  as well to see if this comes up  to cope. This is an example of the fire extinguishers that were  completely inoperative and rusting  out. There were several on the property  and none appeared to be usable.  He also stated that the driveway was supposed to be cutting into  the property and it would not withhold  the weight of fire apparatus. We  had found these people place to live. They  have vacated the property because  it was completely unsafe. As far  as the staff recommendation, all  those buildings will be  referred for condemnation.  Everything else, the compliance date is January  2, 2019 .  

Is anyone still living in that  property?  

There is not supposed to be.  

Okay. November 5 moved out there  and no one was living there and  there was no electricity.  

Okay.  

I neglected, for the record,  let me read in the other two . A possible  via rate -- violation several occupied buildings with  tarps and construction without a permit in chapter 22 -- two . Neglected . Those are the  case numbers. 

Is  Mr. Decker not living out there?  

No. We are living in an apartment.  

He used to be a regular.  

I understand that.  

I'm sure you know my uncle.  

It's the fellow  in the picture?  

Which picture?  

No.  he was not. [ Captioners transitioning ] 

Yeah, but they were vets to. 

They were , a few.  

Let me disclose that 30 years  ago, I represented.  

This is your doing?  

No.  

Oh, that  was comic relief.  

Okay, Mister  White, do you have anything else  to add?  >> He calls me, my uncle called me  about a little less than a month  ago. 
     >> I met with him right around the  first of the month. 
     >> He set up a meeting with him to  grasp what was going on here. On  November 5, there was probably 15 people in  the room.  That was when I finally realized the scope of where  we sit.  

Yeah.  

I can't make excuses. Apparently you know, she is 87 now.  Physically, mentally, he is just  not up to the stats. My  first call was to  a friend of mine, a general contractor. What do we  need to do? And we toured the property  with several of the entities  to be.  

Yeah, we had gone out there about  half a dozen times.  >> 

My address is 107 Dover court. Port Orange 3217.  

Thank you, sorry about that.  

That was my bad, I was supposed  to get that from you.  

I was in my and a couple weeks  ago to the scope of this matter, I talked to my  general contractor, unfortunately he was off for two weeks hunting  this time of year so he is supposed  to be back in a couple days. We  have discussed with several of the  staff, where we want to see, as far as demolition.  

Okay.  

But, we discussed , this is not my field, I would  rather him talk to the contractor , when I should probably start that  process within the week. And nobody is on the property now,  the power is shut down. It is chained  off. I don't plan on doing , yeah. I still have some of the  people's possessions on the property. So I am not really ready  to start demolition yet. Some of  the people moved out haphazardly , so I still  have several of their possessions  on the property. I would like to  see all that gone before we do any  demolition.  

The demolition is not going to  be another issue. We are talking  about noncompliance today. You will  go to another board and they will  make a decision.  

Okay. 

We have a concurrent case, that  will be heard the fifth of December. For  dilapidated structures. 

So this should go along with  that?  

No, we need to get a noncompliance.  

Okay. 

Are we still going to dismiss  that one case?  

Yes, dismissed and referred.  

Go back to staff recommendation  please?  

Except for says 18 instead of  19.  

I know.  

Let me take that case then first. As a  result of the evidence and other  testimony provided today, that we  have a finding of noncompliance, furthermore refer it to see LCA  and dismissed.  

Second. 

That has been moved by Harry,  second by Don. All those in favor,  say I. Motion carries.  

With regard to 18441, 442, and  44 -- 444 power -- , and each of those provided today, that we find them  in violation of the state -- stated  ordinances  and we have a compliance date of  January or February? Let's have our compliance date of February 15  hearing to impose by February  20th. 

That will give you enough time.  

The contractor started, and I  say this is a big, I don't have  my head all the way around this  yet, -- around this yet  ...   

But I've got to sort out the  hazardous materials, okay, moved  by Harry. Second by Don. February  is the date. Any further discussion? All those in favor,  say I. Motion carries. Thank you Mister White for talking  with us about it.  

Good luck. Don't have too much  fun.  

Page 16, request  to discuss accumulated fines. CB 2015,  082, William? Property  at 100 de Leon Springs , I guess staff give  us a quick update. We  will speak with you in just a second.  

Chris Hutchison, code enforcement.  

The case was originally found  and noncompliant September 16, 2015, same date for order imposing  fine lien,  done on November 18, 2015 the property  was brought into compliance for  the violation.  There was a fine amount of $50 per  day that did run for a total  fine of $1050. Our recommendation  is that can be  zeroed out, but there is still where  we had to bring the property into  compliance, fees that are owed that  is hard cash that the county put out, so that  can't be reduced.  

Okay. So how much is that?  

$2077.  

Okay. Mister chair , that is a separate special assessment.  

That is a separate lien?  

Yes. That is not in front of  the board?  

No.  

Right hook  

So staff doesn't have any hard  costs associated with the reduction  of this lien? 

The hard cost is what I mentioned  is $2077.  

That is a separate lien.  

Okay.  

Not our staff, in reference to  this lien.  

Do you have any idea what your  staff in reference to this lien?  

My understanding is recommendation  is to put a zero on it. If  the county somehow someway is getting  money out of this.  

Okay.  

Okay, Mister Boland.  

Gentlemen.  

Hi. Hello.  >> So what we actually have here  is ...  

I am sorry, name and address  for the  record. 

William Boland, 390 Lake Charles  Road, Deland Florida, 32724. 

He was sworn in?  

Yes or.  

Gentlemen, what we have here  essentially is a perfect storm.  I appreciate the county willing  to drop that thousand dollars, I  didn't realize that it was two liens,  I thought it was coming here to  discuss  one lien, as a total amount of $3127. As he previously stated, as he previously stated,  September 16 is when this went  into effect, I actually purchased  the property October 8, 
     I closed through a title company.  I got title insurance. As any of  you know, who have done real estate  transactions , it is not instant on the county  recording side. There is  a lag. It is getting better, but  you know, that was three years ago. 

I have a question for you.  

Would you have any objection  if we reduced the fine to zero?  

No sir.  >> I am ready for a motion if that  is okay with you?  

Yes sir.  

I move that the county's recommendation  that we reduce the fine 20.  

Second.  

Payable within 30 days?  

[ Laughter ]  

It has been moved , all those in favor, say I.  

Opposed, like sign.  

We're just on a short timeframe.  

So is that  the complete amount?  

That is the complete amount. That is the complete amount of  the fine. The lien is a separate  1050.  

Yes sir, how do I go, who do  I speak with to go about handling  the other deal?  

They will go ahead and do that  for you.  

That is not this board.  

Okay.  

That is a county lien. 

There is a county attorney right  over here.  

Maybe Mister Brown might want  to pry -- want to buy me lunch.  

You might be the other way around.  

I think him instead of turkey  would be sufficient.  

Have a nice day.  

Thanks, gentlemen. Have a good  holiday.  

Thanks. You do the same, Mister  Boland.  

Okay, so we stopped people in  the audience. And  I have run out of checkmarks on  my agenda. What cases are you here  for? Oh. Did I miss ...   okay.  >>,.  

Yeah, I am sorry to 

There was  a compliance ...  okay. Top of  page 6. Were you guys sworn in to provide testimony? Okay, please. And then ...  
     >> Do you swear that the testimony  you are about to give is the whole  truth, and nothing but the truth?  

Yes, okay.  

Okay, excellent. So I will read these two cases  and, these are hearings to impose,  or hearing to impose fines on two  separate cases. Can we handle these  together?  

Yeah.  

CB 2018138,  Harry Lynn Stiltner, this was a property  at 1427 John Anderson Drive, one  case involves construction without required permits, the remodel  renovations in the other case regarding  parking motor vehicles in the front  yard, other than the driveway. So  what we will do is do a hear from  county staff real quick and then  get an update from you.  

Okay.  

Let's  see, on May 16 these cases were  before the board and found a noncompliant,  since that time, it has been  removed but the French doors were  added ... there was a use permit issued  for the driveway, the permit itself  is not excited  -- does not expire  until the 2019. It requires taking out the asphalt  driveway which has been done and  replacing it with sod. There is  gravel there instead. It also requires  that the driveway placement be moved  over a few feet to the left according  to the site plan. And it has not.  And accessory structure permit was  issued to address the block wall  and that was the one in compliance. And a builder permit was applied  for on March 8, 2018 and was adding electrical  outlets, replacing a front door,  and windows, no change in footprint. Is permit application does not  address the enclosing of the screened  porch in the backyard, the new lighting  on the front of the house, the new  air conditioning, plumbing, and  the front entryway which has been  added, but also has the new French  doors install. This may not be a  complete list, other windows have  been changed out. On October 19,  staff received a submittal which  includes drawings for the windows,  doors, change in footprint, I am sorry, yeah. Change in footprint,  but was not addressed on the permit  application. Plumbing from David  leet 
     concerning the violations and affidavit  was submitted by David leet who  stated that the electrical outlets  in the plumbing meets the requirements  of the 2017 Florida building code  however our plans reviewers are  wanting from a licensed electrical  contractor, and a licensed plumbing  contractor affidavit. And also, the permit itself, application  needs to be revised  to include all of the violations.  It had Chad  Betty, and David leet as contractors, which he is  not a contractor and David leet  is an architect. And I can't find  any evidence of Chad fatty as a licensed contractor  anywhere. And as an outdoor, owner  builder permit , there was an affidavit that was  initialed and signed by Ms. Stoner stating that she would be on premise  for any and all of the construction  and if she does not have a licensed  contractor shake -- she is to employ whoever is  there as her staff which would also  meet the requirements of taxes and  anything else related, county and  statewide. And on November 20, yesterday,  staff received an email from Eric,  the plans examiner that stated that  he need affidavit committed by the licensed  electrical contractor and plumbing  contractor, he also stated he needed  a zoning sign up there has been  a footprint change on the application. I am just going to, I  am recommending an order imposing fine lien in  the amount of 50 per day per case,  to begin on December 20 with a cap  of 17,500 per case.  

Any questions from staff?  

So  there is a permit regarding the  second case?  

There was a permit regarding  a law and that is the only one.  >> 
     I thought there was a driveway permit?  

There is a use permit which Bob  signed off on. However there is  still parking on the front lawn.  

It is the driveway?  

 That has not been final.  

I am trying to understand ...  

Replace the sod and the driveway  moved over. However, there is gravel  down and that is where they are  parking. That is not a driveway  and the permit itself has not been  final. There is no other inspection  request to date for that.  

Okay. Any questions from staff? Okay, Gary? Name and address for the record  please?  >> 32176. When we were last year, we were  in progress of getting certain permits, the  car issues, a couple of them were  dropped, she just cited -- she decided to leave one because  we didn't have that driveway issue  completed yet. We now do have the permit for  the driveway, which is  almost completed, and we  still have two poor, it has been inspected  for the fighters by the road.  So, our driveway is actually the  new driveway, it's just not done. So, we've  been parking in the new driveway.  Okay, so ...  

So slide 14.  And is that, are these vehicles,  so the I was going to say golf cart, but  I know it is more than that. It is parked in the future driveway?  

Right. If you look at the BMW, it goes 
     in front of the house all the way  out to the other side, also from  John Anderson,  where the gym car is, the new driveway  goes straight up, and then  it goes out to Hibiscus, so that's been approved for  the permit and inspected, we just  are not going pouring the concrete. It is not gravel, it is  a compound crushed show. 
     Because we are going to pay that.  

Okay, so that is the base for  the pavers which is included in  your driver -- driveway permit?  

Yes.  

 1427 John Anderson? The crushed , we don't need to have a permit for that driveway. We just need  a permit for the use, for the  right away. I don't need a permit , because once we are on our  property, I can make the driveway  anyway I want. That is what I was  told. So, I just have to  have a permit for the use permit  for the right away. 

Yes, it is a use permit, to build  something within the right away.  But you also can't park vehicles  not on a driveway.  

But , I tore out the asphalt,  in the permit, so we no longer have  that driveway.  

So now you can't park any vehicles  on your property?  

We were told once we received  the permit, as long as it was concrete, we can make the  driveway with the crushed, it didn't  really matter. Which that  will be with the  pavers eventually.  I haven't owned this house for even  a year yet, so we have been doing  a lot. So as the driveway is right  now, it is not completed, we are  parking on what the  driveway is ...  

You are parking on the base?  

Yeah.  

Can't you park in the driveway? Even if the driveway is in the  front yard, can't you park in the  driveway?  

Well, we do park on the one side  where you see the gym car, that  was ...  

I see the sketch here.  So we  have a concrete driveway coming  in, you're taking that out and putting in a different  driveway, right?  

She said we had to put the sod  down.  

You got your permit for the right  away flayer?  

Right.  >> What is hibiscus, is that a county  road?  

Yes.  

Did you get a permit for that , also?  

Yes.  

Pete, if you are parking in  the garage, then they could drive  across the grass. But since they  are parking  outside of a garage, then it needs  to be stabilized , to the acceptance level of the  zoning enforcement official who  is Mister Ashley, and it needs to  be clearly delineated. So, putting  down chips, putting down gravel, I mean if  it is clearly delineated, and it's  a good solid base, then yes, that can be accepted  as parking but it's an opinion,  there is not necessarily specifications  on it.  

Yes.  

If there is pavers or asphalt , or concrete  that is pretty simple. The rest  of it, you have to look at. I have  had people put down a half an inch  of wood chips and say this is my  driveway, this is where I am parking.  And that does not meet requirements.  

In this case, the testimony was  it was compacted shall to act as  base for a paved driveway, right?  

So it will be paved, but it's  not paved yet? And it is a fully  delineated driveway. I get your  point though. I understand.  

We have already done the landscaping,  most of it around the driveway because  we are trying to finish it and then  get that put in.  

Even if I don't pave it, let's  say I don't but I will, and I still  use that as my driveway?  >> Let's chop this thing up into two,  because case 228 as parking motor  vehicles on the front yard other  than on a driveway, and it appears  to me that the reconfiguration of your  driveway, in the sketch is pretty  clear, and I think your intent is to construct a driveway based  on your testimony, is the shell  down for that driveway? It is compacted  and you are parking on that?  

Yeah.  

That particular issue sounds  like compliance. 

It is compliance.  

Okay. I am not sure what the  discrepancy is.  

It is not done, it is not  final, it is not technically a driveway  until summary goes out and inspects  it. It is still a front yard. 

So they have put down, you have  compacted the subgrade, you have  put in a six inch base material,  you haven't paved it yet, so technically  it hasn't completed the definition  of a driveway?  

No, it is not delineated.  

The only reason is the flares  we have not had the concrete port  -- concrete port on the flares.  Once the concrete is poured off  John Anderson and hibiscus, it is  a completed driveway.  

This is in progress , so you have permits?  

We have permits.  

Right before, I  have that inspected. 

We have the permits.  

My point here, was that you have a permit for the  driveway flares, at points a and B. One is hibiscus,  one is John Anderson. And your sketch that you had that  is inked and, I don't know if the  county has that or not, shows a  driveway connecting those two, that  is your intent?  

Yes.  

You have a permit and process  to do that work. So I  am having a struggle with the violation  of parking in the front yard under  those particular conditions. Now  if you thrown down wood chips or  something temporary or something  like that, I  would think that doesn't constitute  a driveway if somebody is creating  a little space to sort of get around  it. But this one looks like you  are coming there. I don't know that  necessarily I would say there is in compliance,  but I would say there is enough  stuff going on, that I wouldn't find you in violation.  

I would appreciate that.  

Excuse me, you have been found  in compliance, you are in process  of managing that, so today was a hearing to impose fine if there  had been no progress. It looks like  there is enough progress, to edit down the road I suppose. Okay. Then  the construction without permits, that sounds like there is a lot  of work to do on that one. You have  probably got some catch-up work.  

Would you like to see earlier  slides?  

Would you like to see the French  doors?  

Sure, so -- show us a more.  

When I was here last, he had  started some work, my mother  had a stroke December 11 to  be able to ...  
     I had an architect come to draw up everything,  which I promised I would do at our  last meeting. So  anything that we have done, and  that we are going to be doing, which  he inspected everything, we turned  the whole plans and, we filed that. Also, all three thing -- everything was  approved with the building review  for the addition. Code compliance,  zoning, and the Gopher tortoise, the only thing they are seeing right now is  the electrical , which I had the architect, because  he checked everything with the electrical and the one piece  of plumbing in  the kitchen I think.  

I have a question. I am familiar  with the process because I do a  lot of this stuff myself. So you  had David Leach come out and prepared  the permit drawings for you?  

I applied originally for a residential  permit. When I came in and saw that  there was problems, I said what  do I have to do, because he does  do a lot of you know, initial ...  

Your initial was owners permit?  And then you needed more expertise  than you are able to provide?  David  Leach has become involved, it sounds  to me like there has been work outside that set of drawings. Okay. 

Work outside of what drawings?  

You are in process, but if there is things  going on that aren't strictly within  those permit drawings, you are in  violation. They have to strictly be within  the permit drawings, the inspector  comes out to look at it and if it  doesn't look exactly like the plans  ...  

I understand that. I believe  the architectural drawing has everything  that we have  done.  

That depends on the County. If  the comment sheet that you have  got, I have seen not ...   

If those plans agree with what  you are doing in the house, I  don't know what the rub is, but Maggie is shaking her  head that they don't.  

You see on the screen? That October  19? It does not include any outdoor  electrical installations, window  changes, all doors, mechanical change  out or any interior structural changes?  

All of that requires permits.  

We are trying to get ...  

 It is in the drawings. All of that,  there is one window that was pushed  out in the bathroom.  >> We did not replace any other Windows.  

That is a picture.  >> I am getting too involved in all  the details of stuff.  

If I can find out where you are  in this process ...   

We can't talk at the same time.  >> 
     I am just trying to move cases along.  

I understand.  

I have a real short timeframe  today. You are in process .  

Yes.  

I am uncomfortable with the fine,  we could set a fine to start somewhere  down the line to keep the pressure  on, but it sounds to me like you  have got some homework to do with  the county on resolving some of  these issues on interior and exterior , and it's not my job to  discern that. But I am getting too  many mixed messages on where you are with  it.  

As owner builder though, are  you there every time something gets  done?  

I am there, yes ma'am.  

You live there, right?  

I was told that I didn't have  to hire a licensed company to do  certain things. I was told when I came in for the homeowners  permit, that we  could do our own electric, we could  do you know, building ...  

I am sorry to say, that is correct.  

And that is what we have done,  and we had the architect , when  he drew up everything, and he put  everything in there, it was done,  he has seen how it was done. And  it was done correctly. And he sent  to affidavits.  

Okay. Often, when permit drawings are done, they are complete to a  point that a  knowledgeable person can implement  those plans and construct it and  meet building code. And sometimes,  when I -- when  a homeowner tries  to follow those plans, they might  not be as astute as understanding  what they mean. I don't know how  experienced you are with all that  stuff. But that is where bringing  licensed contractors into a system is beneficial.  

Okay, can I say something real  quickly? We had  the architect include that, because I wanted  to make sure after that, after the electrical was done,  he said he made this  better than most places would that  are building all of that. He Evan -- he even sent to supper affidavits  to sign off on the electric, and  any plumbing. Now, I do plan on  in the future, having a whole new box put on the house, and hiring  an electric you know, a company. But, I'm not ready to do that yet.  That is going to cost another five  or $6000. So, anything that has  been added, was just to existing , the outlets, and what electric  is there, and it's safe. So, we were getting  a new box, that is not something  as good as he is  at doing things, that we are going  to hire a company. We will get a  separate permit for that. And then have a whole new box and  make everything current. All we  did was add some outlets, and some  electric. 

That is what I am talking about.  When you add things, and it doesn't  agree with the plan, the inspector  doesn't see it, it is an expansion  of the work, and it's , it doesn't comply with  the permit. I need to ask Mike  a question. Are you kind of up  on this? 

Not on this particular one. But  and architect number one can't certify  electrical.  

Oh, yeah.  

Well, I just found that out.  

I don't understand why we are  discussing not. It is up to the  building official to accept the  affidavits if he feels they are  proper. Go ahead. What do you got?  

I am wondering about, it's an  owner permit, it  sounds like you are not completely in compliance with the  plans. But you are in the permit  review process. So, how  does one resolve that situation? 

Revise the plan.  

Revise the plans, right.  

Have Mister leet ... he needs  to revise the plans to include all  of these changes that you are making.  Especially  if you have a footprint change.  

They are in the plans.  

It is in the plans. I should've  brought the plans.  

That architect  came in ...  went through and measured every  single little detail. Everything  got moved. What's the roof . What's the ...  

Right.   

I don't know what the problem  is.  

Well, I don't know either.  

The only thing I can do is  give you a little time on it. 

I am looking at this note from  1120. He told them what they needed  to do to comply.  So I am not, what we are talking  about now is everything that the  architect did and that has nothing  to do with what Eric asked for.  He asked for an electrical affidavit  and a plumbing affidavit which is  proper because an architect shouldn't  do that and there is a footprint  change which was apparently on the  trans --  on the plans but it wasn't in the  zoning. It is pretty simple to me  what is required.  

It also states in the owner builder,  it says any person working on my  building who is not licensed must  work under my direct supervision  and must be employed by me. Under the Federal insurance contributions  act, and must provide work as compensation  for the employee. I understand that  my failure to follow these laws  may subject me to serious financial  risks.  

Okay.  

We are getting off track here. There is two issues.  

Please can I just say this? Ladies and gentlemen, I have a  lot to do as well as you for Thanksgiving.  I have complied with every single  thing, I have promised that  I would do when I was here last.  The only thing that just came  up, because we have gotten everything checked,  we had the architect send the whole  thing and, not the affidavit. The  drawings, all of that. Trying to  get this permit pulled, and as of November 20,  which was yesterday,  it was still under review, and I  just got this email saying yesterday, that the affidavit for the electric was not acceptable,  by the architecture. Which  I did not know until yesterday. So, I do plan on  hiring a company to redo my whole  box and all of that, can I wait  and have that added to that? To  be inspected, or do I need a separate inspection, that  is the only thing I have not done? I have tried to complete everything  in a short amount of time and it  has been very difficult.  

Probably the best thing to do  is meet with David leet , have him find out what needs to  be done on the plans, that the inspector has noted here  already.  

I haven't received that.  

That goes back to November 20. We are not going to resolve it  here today, that is for darn sure.  

I am unclear, I understand that.  I.e. ham -- I am unclear on  what they are wanting to this plan.  

Me too, I can't help you on that  one. I am ready to make a motion  on this driveway thing.  And, since  there is 
     a little detail about it being paved,  I want to kick this can down the  road a while, so that that has an  opportunity to get resolved. I personally  think you are in compliance, but  I think there is a technical detail  that maybe isn't resolved. And I don't put you in compliance. So, I am going to move in case 201-8228, that we issue an amended order for January 16, 2019, as a  hearing to impose fines, we will  see if that  flies.  

Second.  

Moved by Pete, second by Harry. All those in favor,  say I. Motion carries. 
     >> I have got to  side with building department on  this one, because  it's not moving along. So, what was your recommendation? So, you are going to start on 12/20 ,  that is not very far. So I am going  to say January 17, I am going to  move in 138,  that based on the additional testimony  we have heard, that we establish a fine of $50  a day, to begin on January 17, 2019.  And run until compliance is achieved  or a maximum cap of $17,500.  

Second that.  

I don't know which case that  is.  >> That is 138. That is the construction  without required building permits.  

Everything you are doing  to the structure. The doors, windows,  HVAC, electrical, the house renovations.  

All I need for that, as the electrical. -- Is  the electrical.  >> We will explain this afterwards.  

Moved by Pete. Seconded? 

Go ahead and second it. Then  you can't call for questions.  

Second.  

Okay, seconded by Vicki. Any  further discussion? All in  favor, say I. Motion carries.  

The recourse is we can't resolve  all these issues here today, there  is too many he said, she said. So  you have got to meet the requirements  of the building department , or plans that agree with what  is going on.  >> Ma'am, you have  all the people here you need to  speak to. Speak to them or make  an appointment.  

I think you are on the right  track.  

I am trying to be.  

Speak to them and they will verify.  

If we didn't think you were on  the right track, we would've began  the find next month.  

We wouldn't have spent 20 minutes  talking.  

That as well. Okay.  

You got it. 
     >> Okay.  

What case are you here for?  Okay. There we go, top of  page 12. Okay, step on up.  Maggie will give us let's see, new case. So  let me read the Zen. -- Read  these and. Zero -- George Huff , section 72 Dash 287, recreational vehicle improperly  parked, 327 and Dora Street,  Ormond Beach and also, 18031, same property, for a possible violation , 72 Dash 287,  living in an RV or RV connected to water sewer or  electric, were not permitted. So,  are you George?  

I am George , this is my father who has passed  away.  

Okay, sir. And so name and address  for the record?  

George Huff, 524 N. timber Creek  Road. Ormond Beach, 32174.  

Okay, will you be writing testimony?  

Yes, I am the owner of the RV?  

Name and address please?  

Don Martin, Ormond Beach Florida, 32174.  

Okay, are you here to contest  a violation or to provide us information?  

Contest.  

Both of them?  

Yes.  >> We will hear from the county and  the information they have gathered  and then we will hear from you.  Thank you.  

Margaret, code enforcement, let's  see. March 8, of  this year, staff complained about an RV that it  was being lived in part on the driveway. They confront a violation, and  delivered the violation on April  12, on June I received another complaint  about the property having a second  RV that was being lived in. And  when I went out, they confirmed  that complaint. That second RV is  now gone. The property was posted October  26, with a notice of hearing and  continuance. I have continued to  think the progress because the other  RV was gone. However staff is recommending an order  of noncompliance with a compliance  date of January 2, and a hearing  to impose fines scheduled for January  16.  

Any questions from staff? 

When you hand-delivered, was  it to the occupants of the vehicles?  

Know there was a gentleman on  site.  

Okay. Okay. Either one of you  want to give us an update, or tell us why you contest?  

My father passed away. 

You have to use the microphone.  You can pull it towards you.  

My father passed away in April.  It is my brother's property but  my father always kept it in his  name. Because he thought might --  my brother would do something stupid and he would get rid of  the property. My brother got shot  up a while ago and his thought ain't  right. So, my stepmom , she has paid property taxes, has  backed electric. She has no more  money , she is just on a fixed income.  She just got that straightened out,  so these finds that they were saying  on the previous letters, that is  what I am here about. Because we came down trying to  get it put in my brother's name  because it is his property. But  they told me my stepmom that we  had to go to probate court. Which  I don't really understand why, because  to me, and my two older sisters,  and we all know it is my brother's  property and my dad just kept it  in his name. So my brother would  have a place to live, because we  just can't have him come stay with  us. So, but it's her mobile home , not mobile home, RV, that is down  there. And that is why I have her  here today, because we are trying  here to do everything we can to  get it put in my brother's name  but it is kind of stuck in limbo  here. And she is 88 years old and  she is about ready to have a nervous  breakdown over all this and that  is why I am kind of here overseeing  her interest, because I am not really,  if something happens to her, then  I am in charge of everything than. 

Thank you for appearing. The  fines don't begin until much later. 

Okay.  

No fines have accrued, that is a  next step, if we don't see some  progress.  

Okay, thank you.  

You can relay that to her. The  issue is,  the recreational vehicles can't  be lived in on properties that don't allow for  that type of use. Is there a principal  structure, or is this a vacant property? Oh, there is a house on this property?  

Yes, he has a mobile home on  this property.  

Okay, I didn't see that. 

It is at the top.  

The RV caught my eye.  

[ Laughter ]  

Okay.  

But it is not hooked to the sewer,  nothing.  

Okay.  

That is why he thought he was  being in trouble, because it was said that it was hooked up to  the power and everything. They were  going to put it in the backyard,  but I don't know if that picture  shows it but she has a picture on  her phone with the powerline that  it hangs down so low in the driveway, that they have to get somebody  to put it up so the vehicle can  be put behind the house. 

Okay. So the pictures were taken  on the fourth and fifth? I am  sorry, slide four and five. The  picture was taken  a week  or two ago, propane is connected. So is anybody living in the RV? 
     >> [ Inaudible ]  

I am back and forth.  

Okay.  

I do hook up the gas so it stays flowing. Other than that, it has  been dumped at gas stations and camps.  

Okay. 
     Is there an issue with where it's  parked in the position on the property?  

It is in the driveway.  

That is the only problem, is  because of the powerline. Which  I can show you on my phone. It is  way too low to pull it back any  further. We do have a dog on the  property, tied to the RV,  because of there have been people  coming in and out, and robbers --  robberies throughout  this property. It has been a mess. 

Okay.  

What are you doing about the  powerline?  

We called the sour -- we called the Florida powerline,  and they are saying it is our responsibility,  or David's responsibility. And,  because it is a live wire, it's  from the  transmitter, to the actual house. 
     So, I'm not sure how to go about  doing that.  

Where it comes down to his trailer? That is where it's low, where they  can't back up no further. 

Well, you need to get resolved  than. You have to figure out who  was responsible and get it done.  Then you can move.  

What is before us, the staff  is recommending that you move this vehicle, either off the property, by ... by January 2?  

She is right,  there is a powerline , but make sure where you move it  is all right.  >> Yeah.  

That is why we are here today,  we want to be in compliance with  everything. Guess what, we want  you in compliance.  

So, you can relay to your mother, that you have until January 2,  if we make a motion to this effect,  January 2 to move it, or fines will  be considered to be imposed at our  meeting on January 16. So, then we could get an update as  to why it didn't get moved if that  happens.  

Is there any other way that we  can, do we have to do this probate  thing to have it put?  

That is a whole another matter .  

That has nothing to do with the  violation.  

That is maybe something you will  have to do.  

Why we have January 2, as opposed  to something closer to the 16th? 

We have been putting them off  two weeks out, because we have our  meeting, like two days after that.  

Okay.  >> Give as much time as  they can. Right after Christmas and New Year's,  and so forth. So pick another date.  

February? 

There is so many ballgames on  that day.  

[ Laughter ]  >> I mean can they be in compliance  four days before the hearing or  something like that?  

Whatever  you guys ...  

Why don't you pick a date and  we will be happy with that?  

Are you sure?  February? We can  do February. The  thing is not doing anything, it  is kind of sitting there. It is  coming and going though.  

Some of the has vehicles -- some  of these vehicles, they said. But,  so ...  

 Maybe the 16th is fine. I  am just saying January 2, you know  for compliance. 

You can make a motion.  

Before you make the motion, we  are talking about the first violation,  correct?  Or are we talking about both of  them? Because the second one, I  heard nobody is living in it, and  I don't see it connected, so I want  to make sure we are clear on what  you are doing?  

I am looking at the electrical  concern, and moving the trailer.  

So that relates to the first  one to mark  

Yeah the first one is improperly  parked. The second one is someone  is living in a. I am not convinced  someone is living in it.  

I move in the case. I move it be dismissed.  

That can be withdrawn.  

I don't know if anybody hurt  me.  

I heard you.  

I respectfully request that the  living in the RV  be withdrawn from this.  

So moved.  

It has been moved. 

We need a motion.  

Yeah.  

 CB 201-8361 has been withdrawn. 

So entertain a motion for CB  20183 is -- entertain a motion. 

You are thinking of something?  

 Sure, in the case, George Huff, represented  by George D Huff. We find a violation in the stated  ordinance, I think we were setting  what, February? February 21, excuse  me, February 20 as a hearing  to impose fine, February 15 as a  compliance date.  

Second.  

Okay. Been moved by Pete, second  by Don. All those in favor, say  I.  >> I.  

Motion carries.  

Okay, thank you all.  

Thank you.  

Happy thanks giving!  

You have until February 15 to  move it to the correct ...  

Okay.   

Well we only have 26 more cases.  

Is that all?  

Well, you have 54 minutes, right? -- What you have four minutes,  right?  

What a deal.  

Just make one motion.  

[ Laughter ]  

Moving all the remaining cases  ...   

Okay. Top of  page 4. CB 201-6132, Michael , ninth amended 

This was last presented before  the board on May 16, 2018, was ordered  a ninth amended order of noncompliance. Instructions for the whole house  without a plummet -- without a permit. They needed to have a variance , they did get a variance,  but then the variance has now since  expired and there has been no activity. I have left voicemails for this guy and he  doesn't call me back.  

Okay.  

Staff recommendation, is they fined him $100 a day 
     up to $5000. Starting next month.  

On 12/20?  

Yes, just in  time for Christmas.  

So, move.  

That is only 50 days. 

I will second it.  

It has been moved by Harry. Second  by Pete.  All those in favor, say I. Motion  carries.  

Ronald insurance. 

Property at 1761 Mitchell court.  

This is easy. Margaret. Code  enforcement. Stuff is are committing  a third amended order, they just need a building  final and the permit is valid until  April 10, so push it out until April  17 for hearing.  

Isn't this all this ever needed?  

No.  

This finally gets another ...  

Okay.   

Who made the motion?  

Harry moved.  Bless you. Harry moved. Seconded by Don. All  those in favor, say I.  

Motion carries.  >> CB 201-7239, Ruth Anderson. 18  sunny sure.  

Oh, this is beautiful. 

Margaret, code  enforcement. This has been before  the board and has orders of noncompliance  issued , as of right now, we are recommending  a fifth amended order, of noncompliance  because we have reached out to Frank  Bruno, former chair here, for the  -- he talked to me Lester day -- you talk to me yesterday,  and she is out of money, they took  her money, so we are trying desperately  to find a way to help her out so  that we do not want to impose a  fine on this poor woman. So he stated  that he put her on a list with I  believe he called it the Vine group.  Which has a lot of volunteers to  go out and paint her house, just  to get this thing, so we can call  for a final.  

Okay.  

Anybody so moved ?  

So move.  

So moved by Pete.  

Second.  

Seconded by Don. All those in  favor, say I. 

CB 201754, James and Sherilyn Mintzberg.  

This has been before  the board in the past. This  is an unmaintained roof. A roof  permit has been issued, and is valid  until March 7. Yay! So, they are recommending a fifth  amended order for the April 17 hearing. 

Moved by Don.  

Seconded by Pete. All those in  favor, say I.  

Motion carries.  

 On page 6, CB 201-8144  L HT Granger, LLC.  1318 Avenue D. 

Margaret, code enforcement, this  was before the board a month ago,  and a first amended order of noncompliance  was issued due to the property changing  names. Not technically him but the  technic 
     -- but the company name. Anyway,  it has been posted in the last time  I was out there there was no change,  the staff is recommending an order,  imposing lien.  

Any communication when with them? 

No. 

Ever?  

I have had to post the property  for everything  

Moves  

Moved by Vicki. Second  by Pete. All those in favor, say  I.  

Motion carries. Top page 7. CB 201857. James  Park low. 700 E. Minnesota Avenue.  >> We made  it understood , and  he applied for the permits. He is  in review. No complaints for the hearings  ...  
     >> I'm sorry. 

He was expressing his first amended. 

You are using your rights?  

That's right.  

Moved by Pete. Seconded by  Vicki. All those in favor, signified by  saying I. Opposed like sign. Motion  carries.  

CB 201821280 rentals, LLC 1536  Culver House Drive. 

Margaret, code  enforcement. This case, work without  a permit was before the board and found in noncompliance, the  root permit is still issued but  has been no expection approval or  request to date, the violation inside  the house still remain, no permit  request for that at all. Were applications.  I should say. It was  supposed to change hands, but I  am thinking that the people who  were going to buy it, they are not  doing it. So I am recommending an order imposing  fine, lien in the amount of 100  per day to begin 12/20 for the cap  of $5000.  

You said there was a building  permit for the roof?  

That was issued but they have  no inspections. It doesn't appear  that they have done any work at  all.  

When does it expire?  

A couple of months.  

Okay. But the roof doesn't take  care of everything to Mark  

No, it doesn't. 

Moved.  

Moved by Vicki.  

Seconded by Pete.  

All those in favor, signified  by saying I.  

If they are looking at selling  it, do we need to ...?  

I am sorry.  

Motion carries.  

We are recording everything.  

That is on the books.  

Thank you. Top of page 8, CBT  018, Joseph.  

45  Sunset Boulevard. Beautiful. 

That is a nice house. Anyway, Margaret, code enforcement,  this case involving expired roof  permit was before the CB and found  in noncompliance last month, a new  roof permit was issued to address  the part of the roof that was in  violation, and that is valid until April 23. So,  staff is recommending the first  amended order of noncompliance scheduled  for May 15.  

Don't forget  your invite.  >> Well, just in case.  

[ Laughter ]  >> 
     >> 
     I will move in the case, that we  issue a first amended order of noncompliance  for the hearing to impose fines for  the May 15 date.  

Second.  

Moved by Harry, second by Don.  Any further discussion?  

All in favor, signified by saying  I. Motion carries.  

CB 201827, Katelyn K. 

This is chair just for the record,  members on the left. 

No one else can leave.  

Yes, we still have a quorum.  

Code enforcement, yes, the stock  is still there -- yes, the truck  is still there on the property.  

I told her to sell it.  

I know, I talk to neighbors.  No buyers yet. Order to impose a  lien, be issued with a one-time  fine of $1500. Mentioned January  17, 2019.  >> No. 
     >> Not a lump sum I don't believe.  I think you can do a one-time fine,  without ...  

 You might be right, Charlie. 

You can do a one time what?  >> It  looks like we are getting way ahead  here. What is the reason for the  one-time fine?  

You're right, it is 250. I am  sorry 

One time, I say we just give  her a break I guess. 

Why don't you do $25 a day, and  a $1500 cap?  >> Just sell the truck.  

I know.  

It was  her late father's. 

Okay, Mister Chairman, I will  move the case. Evidence and  testimony provided today, that we  establish a fine of $25 per day,  to begin January 17. Right? With a  cap of $1500. 

Second.  

Moved by  Harry, second by Vicki. Any further  discussion? All those  in favor, signified by saying I.  Opposed like sign. Motion carries. Top of page 9. CB 2018315, Rebecca and Tripp.  

Margaret , I recommending a first amended  order of noncompliance because they  have done a lot of work.  

So I wanted to have a hearing scheduled for January 16, 2019.  

Moved by Harry.  

Second I Don. All those in favor, signified by  saying I. Opposed like sign. Motion  carries. CBO 201-8320 -- CBT 018328 Deanna Dunaway.  >> Debbie, this case involves an improperly  maintained mobile home. Found in noncompliance, August  15, 2018, the demo permit was issued, through December 19 of  this year. Staff  is recommending the second amended  order of noncompliance hearing to  impose on December 19.  

Moved.  

Moved by Don. Seconded  by Harry. All those  in favor, signified by saying I.  Motion carries.  CB -- CEPT zero  -- CEP 201-8350  Terrence and Kathy Smith.  

Michael , he tried to come to the hearing,  but he had car trouble.  

Well, yeah.  

[ Laughter ]  

 He was trying to come here and he  had car trouble and he also travels a lot,  that is why he can't call me and  stuff like that. But I also checked,  it is still not registered.  First Amendment order of noncompliance. 

So you have talked with him,  so ...  

 I talked to him, yes.  

What is he trying to do with  the truck?  

He is going to get license and  tax and get registered and everything.  

Does he understand what he needs  to do and when he needs to do it?  

Moved. 

Second.  

Moved by Don, second by Vicki.  All those in favor, say I. Motion  carries.  >> That truck looks like it needs  more than tail lights and a license  plate. It looks like it needs a  cool -- a whole new run. CEP  201-8381.  

Good  afternoon.  

Afternoon. Oh, my gosh.  >> 
     Christopher, code compliance, this  case is presented before the board  on October 17, 2018, found in noncompliance,  reroofing renovation of mobile home  without permits. I have been unable to obtain any  other contact with this gentleman,  he is at a owner builder who was  the one who stated that his roofer  had to cease. -- Had deceased. 
     He informed me he was in mourning  each time that I had spoken with  him prior to this. So, no changes. So recommending a fine to  begin on the -- on December 20. 

Wow. 

Sounds like a motion.  

I guess so, yeah. I  will accept staff's recommendation. Based on testimony evidence received. The fine of $100 a day, not to exceed $5000,  begin on 12/20. 

Second.  

Moved by Don, second by Vicki.  All those in favor, signified by  saying I. Opposed, like sign. Motion  carries.  

CB --  CAB 2018389, Jack Niemi. 121 W.  booth -- Wesley. I  recall this one. Yikes.  

Debbie,  code compliance. 
     That trailer is still there as of  yesterday, staff is recommending  an order of order imposing fine lien, $25 a  day, December 20, not to exceed $2700.  

I see that the owner is deceased? 

We can only hope.  

I have done some unofficial research.  And unofficially speaking, there used to be another boat parked  in front of this property. Do you  see where that boat is now?  

I do. 

That boat is like two houses  down in their driveway. Like does  the date -- does the late  Jack Niemi know where his boat went?  

Is this a midnight move?  

I found myself on  West Loop and Oak Hill.  

[ Laughter ]  >> It grew legs.  

It was high water that did it.  

No, I happened  to be down there.  

It was hilarious. Anyway. So, what is the desire of the group?  

Why can't we just pick this  thing up? It is garbage.  

It is garbage.  

Why can't waste management  or somebody ...   

What does it achieve ...  

What does it achieve I guess  is the question? To do this. The  guy is dead.  I mean how do we expect it to be  resolved?  

Have you been in touch with anybody  that could be in error? Sons daughters? 

Right, there are two children , Bobby  and Myrtle. There is no probate. There is,  has any interest in this property.  

He didn't leave a will or anything  like that?  >> Hopefully there is a will, but  I have not seen a will. There is  no will file. I tried to get in  touch with the attorney that drew  up this will. They have not responded. Yeah, as far as  I know, it was drawn up in a napkin in a barroom.  

The reason to do this is obviously  to get somebody to take action on  it, I understand what you're saying.  I don't know, we can't make waste management go out there  and pick it up, they have their  own rules.  

What I am wondering, is if we  just postpone it, and attempt to  resolve it, until ...  

Yeah, but I don't know how she  is going to resolve it. You have  been doing it for eight months now,  trying to get this thing ...   

Yeah, but I mean I can understand  your dilemma, but, just  to say until such time as we can  determine who owns the property,  or a will is found.  

We know who owns it. He is just  dead.  

Yeah, well ...   

Is that why he is not here today,  or what?  

Right, but we are here because  somebody complained. 

I understand you got a great  point, and this is the dilemma we  always find ourselves in. I am not  advocating one way or another, I  am trying to get to a resolution  that seems reasonable.  

What is the resolution? To cause  the county to try to contact somebody?  Or ...   >> We kind of already dead.  

There is outstanding taxes on  this property.  >> Has it been issued?  

Not that I know of.  

It takes a while.  

They should've issued, if it  is in there already. They have probably  issued it.  

It is four years?  

This may already be on the  county. If nobody buys it.  

I will look this one up.  

Why don't we postpone it until we have more information?  

I will move in 8389,  that we have a first amended order  of noncompliance for the hearing  to impose find of the December whatever  meeting. December 19. Moved  by Harry.  

Hopefully get  -- hopefully that gives staff enough  time. 

I can find out right now if it  is on the roles.  

Why don't we put off until the  next meeting  she received further guidance from  the county.  

That is what I did.  

That is what he said.  

Oh, second!  

We have got a junkyard on  the side of State Route 44 and we  are dealing with this little trailer. 

That is my day job, I am sorry.  >> 
     Moved by Harry. Second by Don. 
     All those in favor, signified by  saying I. Opposed, like sign. Motion  carries.  

Yea,  new case. 20 
     8149. Myron Schaefer. 1422. Tommy Hitchcock Avenue, Daytona  Beach. Violation of  the County code ordinances , 72 Dash 241, junkyard we  are not permitted. Okay. 

 Do you want me to wait for Don? 

Margaret Godfrey, back in January  we had received a complaint about  a junkyard  and  a whole lot of abandoned vehicles.  A lot of the vehicles have gone.  I've had to post the property for  the notices of violation and also  the hearing and I have had continued  that a few times, because he was  making progress but now that is  all that is left. It became part  of a junkyard case because he had pretty much scrapped the rest of  it I think. That is all that is  left. And it has just been sitting there  for the past few months, and so  it has not moved, changed, and actually  stuff is growing around it. So I  was recommending a finding noncompliance  with a compliance date of December  5. And find scheduled for December  19.  >> What is desired between the two  of you?  

[ Laughter ]  

One should make a  motion.  >> I will go ahead.  

If you roll it over, it is easier  to get the parts off the bottom.  

Yeah.  

I will move in case 201-8149. I will provide that we have a violation  against the permitted I mean against  the, yeah. It is in violation.  

[ Laughter ]  

Simply stated.  

Let's go ahead and start  over.  

Hearing to impose fines  January 16. A compliance  date of January.  

Moved by Harry.  Seconded by Don.  All those in favor, signified by  saying I. Motion carries.  >> 
     >> Robert, all these involving a property  at 23 River Drive, first possible  violation , chapter  52 article 1, section 50 e- three,  maintenance ordinance improperly  maintained structure, and then chapter 22  Dash two sections 105.1, 109.3,  construction without required permits. A 160 square foot shed, and  roof repairs. And then chapter 72  article 2 division seven 72 Dash  two for one, junkyard we are not  permitted. -- Where not  permitted.  >> So just those three cases. On page  11.  

Maggie.  

Last February stuff received  a complaint about an unmaintained  home and junk and the yard. February 9 I went out that same  day and confirmed the violations  and it also appeared roof work was  being done and there was a boarded  up front window. There was also  junk in the front yard. A.k.a. the  toilet. There was also 160 square  foot shed on the property, since  2001, that was put up without a  permit. Violation was, these received  all of these notices. They  was progress  -- there was progress to clean up  the property, I continued on October  5, the on-site inspection , however the junk was now in the  garage and it appeared the garage  door cannot be closed. So technically,  it is still noncompliant because  you can still see it. It also  appears that some more roof work  had been done and the board had  been removed from the front of the  health -- from the house and the  window had been installed. There is no evidence of a permit  for that. There also appeared to  be issues with the siding and there  was some boards that were missing. I have had one conversation with  his daughter about the property  and it was starting to be taken  care of a few months ago but now  it has just stopped. Staff is recommending an order  of noncompliance with a compliance  date of January 2, hearing to impose  find scheduled for January 16 for  all three cases.  

What is the setback for a toilet?  

25 feet.  

Is it contacted?  

[ Laughter ]  

I laugh because ...  

  Actually, I get hangry.  

Vibrator  -- I better bring snicker bars  with me.  >> All three of them together. Moved  by Don. Seconded by Vicki. All those  in favor, signified by saying I. Motion carries. 
     >> 201-8366, freehold properties. Several new  structures at 2116 points yet a  drive. 

Margaret Godfrey. First off I  want to say  who has been handling this was  not able to make it today, she had  a medical emergency but she wanted  to let me know and you guys know  we have been in contact via email  and phone, since this all opened  up.  

Is all of this  instruction -- is all of this construction without  ...   

It is. We have let's see ...  

Is that the same structures?  It looks dilapidated. 

Yeah, they added onto that one,  I believe that was the ellipse -- that was the ..., yeah.   

Really?  

Yeah, any who , on May 29, 2015, staff met on  site with David who stated the property  will be listed under freehold properties,  it was explained that the building  he was doing with the permits and  inspection approvals he stated that  the property has an exemption, the  property has five acres, however  we still don't see one. Anyway, and on June 5, 2015  staff checked with John Hawkins  for confirmation, he stated this  property doesn't have an exemption.  On July 27, 2015, staff received  an email from then chief building  official, that read we are allowing  him time to collect the exemption. The  exemption will be applied for but  might not be granted until 2016. Stuff received a complaint about  some buildings being brought in  and those are like the shed type  structures. And July 18, staff , and inspection confirmed the violations.  August 10, 2016 after receiving  another complaint, about buildings  being brought in, staff promised inspection approvals, and that  is when they insisted on speaking with Joe. August 12,  2016, staff met on site with Blair  who allowed access. To walk the  property in view inside each of  the structures, there were structures used for  covers of the cows. There was structures with hay and farm agreement.  There is barn used for storing feed  and agreement. There was a covered  area with a small dock on the pond.  There were two log cabin looking  structures which are sheds. That  he used for storage. These are pictures  of the interior and exterior structures,  also violations were hand-delivered.  An email was sent to missile 
     -- to Mister Marshall Eck with the  finding of the inspections. The  list included the following setback  issues, two principal structures  on one lot, having an RV connected  where not permitted. There are two  large cabin like structures, the  screen structure beside the pond. 
     March 30, 2017, staff met with Mister  Marshall to discuss the need for  permits. He assured staff he would  order a new survey and get these items permitted.  April 7, 2017 staff received a phone  call from Mister Marshall who stated  that the survey told him that the  shed met the setback requirement  by about three inches. He also stated  that he will get the survey in a  few weeks and he will bring it in  with drawings and specs to make  an application. June  14, 2017, application for a permit  was submitted on that date for upgrading  the eligible service from 200 to  400, and application for re-permit was submitted for an after-the-fact  by two 12 manufactured sheds. [ Inaudible ]  December 12, 2017, electrical  permit application was canceled  due to activity. A  permit application should come  in to address all of the violation, and on March 5, 2018 another permit  application was canceled also due  to the permit application stating  that they were guest houses, not  sheds, but the plans stated these  buildings were not habitable space.  On October 8, staff had a meeting  with Colleen, land development resource  group and Karen to establish what  needed to be done,  to bring the property into compliance,  she was shown photos  to explain the sum of the buildings  had been on the tax roll since 2012  without evidence of the required  permits and approvals. The current new builds will not  be allowed as guest houses, only  sheds, because they are not considered  habitable space. You would also  have to get a permit [ Inaudible  ]  there have been no permit applications to date, however Colleen did call  me yesterday and sent me an email  and stated that she will be in the  area next week. Like I said she  had an emergency come up.  So she had asked me to bump it out,  like another couple of days. So I told her okay.  So I said staff is recommending and finding  of noncompliance with the compliance  date of February 6, 2019 and a hearing  to impose find scheduled for February  20, 2019. Originally I would do  it for January, but she asked me  for more time. I still want the  order of noncompliance for this  property.  

I see there were cows. Is not  appropriate for MH three?  

They are gone. 

So the answer is yes they were  and no they are not?  

Yes, they are gone.  

Sometimes they rent cows  

They do.  >> What relationship is Colleen Miles ?  

Land development. She is an  architect, something.  >> 
     C is working on behalf of Mister  ...  

She has all of the stuff to bring  in, she was supposed to come in  yesterday and that is why she called  me because she had a medical emergency.  

 Okay, I didn't know if she was  a buyer or something. But to help  get Mister Marshall ...  so after  six years of this, get him up to  date.  

 Based on your conversation, will  you expect everything will be resolved?  

She has been on it. She has been contacting me via  email and phone to let me know what's  going on. 

Everything should be resolved  then?  

I think my highlight was upgrading  the electrical permit. They are upgrading from 200 to  400 when the 200 was never permitted. 

Hence the cancellation.  

[ Laughter ]  

What is the desire of the board?  

The ones that remain? 

Based on the evidence and testimony  today, that we find them and noncompliance,  and compliance stated 6 February  of next year. Hearing to impose  find, on  2/20, moved by Don. Second by Harry.  Any further discussion? All those  in favor, signify by saying I.  Opposed, like sign.  

Motion carries.  

Excellent story.  

Very long.  

 201-8368 , Robert Jones and Wendy Fletcher. Construction without the required  permits, a shut. At 1560 Valencia Avenue Daytona  Beach.  

Margaret Godfrey,  code compliance. They received  an anonymous complaint about the  property having, wait I am looking  at the wrong one. May 31, I received a message from Frank  about a detached structure that  was in the process of being built  without evidence of the required  permits, and those are a violation signed for  by Mister Jones, he does not live  there this is a tenet. I have had  a conversation with Mister Jones  that said the tenant would put up  a shut. -- Put up the shed. There been no applications to date.  The staff is recommending an order  of noncompliance, compliance date  of January 2 in a hearing to impose  fines January 16.  

Based upon the testimony , based on the testimony provided ...  

List by Vicki, seconded by Don,  all those in  favor, signify by saying I. Opposed  like sign. Motion carries.  

 Middle of page 14, CAB 201-8417,  Ivan Gray. Possible violation , chapter 118.34 article 2 abandoned  vehicle section 118, vehicles inoperable,  55 Secrest Drive.  

Oh, I love PT cruisers.  >> Margaret Godfrey. A few months  ago we received a complaint about  cars without tags on the front lawn.  When I had originally gone out there,  that was true.  Violation was received  and signed for by Mister Gray. He has signed for everything. I  have spoken to him about the violations,  and the cars are no longer parked  on the front yard but the PT cruiser  still has no tax. He called yesterday  morning and he said the car is gone,  and Robert Scherer, the new gentleman,  bless his heart, went out of their -- went out there, but yes, the  car is gone. Because it wasn't done  in the time frame, allotted I am recommending a fine of noncompliance  with order to dismiss. Because the  car was not gone. 

Okay.  

And potential repeat? If he so  chooses to do that. Okay.  

I assume the November 20 note that the car you are talking  about is a PT cruiser?  

Yes, PT cruisers.  

You found it further down the  street?  

[ Laughter ]  

You  know, that is the reason for the  order of noncompliance.  

[ Laughter ]  

Let's dismiss.  

Yes, please.  

Motion?  

Vicki?  

It is a motion, based on her  testimony.  

It has been moved by Vicki, seconded  by Don. All those in favor,  signify by saying I.  
     >> C EB 2018425, Dana. Construction without required permits for two expired permits at 1888 John Anderson drive.  >> 
     We can hear this case but I want  to be aware, before we started,  that we discovered this, she has filed for bankruptcy,  so we are okay to hear the case  and we can file in order of noncompliance  but when you set the fine hearing,  we cannot bring it back while the  bankruptcy pens because that is  a new creditor and we would be violating  the order, so you can hear the violation , and if you find evidence to find a violation exists, you're  a good -- you are  good but I would ask when you do  the motion to put it out, quite  a ways, I would say at least six  months and then we would continue  to ask for amended orders or something.  

Should we just kick it down the  road and bring it back?  

Well, look, I would sit the --  I would say to get the noncompliance . At least with the order of noncompliance, because the court may be ordering  different things, but at the same  time, we are preventing a potential  issue being passed to a new seller.  A new buyer.  

I agree.  >> Do you know if you filed chapter  7 or 13?  

I don't know that specifically.  

He.  

I don't know  that specifically.  

I am sorry, I think I used a  female pronoun.  

What was the recommendation? 

He had two expired permits, one was to replace windows and  doors throughout the home, and had  been issued, November 2, 2016, expired  July 29, 2017 without having a building  final, it didn't pass the window  or door install but a final inspection  was never requested, same thing  with the residential permit, to replace the AC system, plaster  drywall, installation, removing  cabinets in the kitchen and bathrooms,  flooring, no plumbing or electrical  work was done, expired July 5, 2017 with  only one inspection approval, the  permit still needed to have a combo  framing in the final Don. I did  receive a call from Mister Micallef  who stated that the permits had  been closed out, it was us, not  him. 

August 22, 2018, the violation  was received and signed for by Mister  McCulloch -- Mister McAuliffe, there  is been no further contact with  him, no permit extension  requested and so staff is recommending  the finding of noncompliance, with  the compliance date of January 2  but now that the bankruptcy has  come to light, the hearing to impose  can be yeah, whatever you decide. 

Mister Chairman, I will move  the case. 8425. As a result of the evidence and  testimony provided today, that we  have a finding of noncompliance.  With a compliance date of August 20, hearing to impose by  August 21.  

Wow, second. Great.  

So great  you will seconded?  

Absolutely.  

Moved by Harry, second by Don.  All those in favor, signify by saying  I.  

 Motion carries.  

Top of page 15. C EB  2018438, Andrew Barro. Possible  violation , chapter 72 article 2, division  eight section 72 Dash 287, boat and or  trailer improperly parked, 17 Hibiscus  Drive, I think that is all I know.  

Margaret Godfrey, code enforcement.  In the past I have had some conversations with him about the boat and he  knows it is not supposed to be there  and he did have it removed at one  point. Now it is back and it has  been sitting there for the past  few months. I posted, have had to post the  notice, both notices the violation  and the hearing, and the boat is  still as of two weeks ago, still  sitting there. And there has been  no contact. I was recommending a  finding of noncompliance with a  compliance date of December 5 and  a hearing to impose on December  19.  

Moved.  

Moved by Harry.  

Second. And again, he understood  way back when, that it was not to  be there and just taking away for a while wasn't  going to do it.  

This is not a repeat.  

No.  

It will be now.  

Moved by Harry. Seconded by Don.  All those in favor, signify  by saying I. Opposed like sign.  Motion carries.  >> Middle of page 16, last new case.  CEP 201-8467.  Orville Russell and Patrick Senior I suppose. Possible violation , chapter 52, health and sanitation. Section  58 stash 36, a nuisance, grass, weeds, yard  trash, 1111 E. University Avenue  near Deland.  

Mister Hooper, what do you know?  

Code compliance, I received  a complaint, a while  back actually it was in August. And what had happened, it went  to our vendor, and he mowed the  front of the property and was in  able to mow the back of the property, because of a padlock on  the gate. He did have contact with a company, that  has been claiming they are going  to service the property and mow  it, and it has been going around  and around. And nothing, our vendor  serviced it, but could not service  the back. So, we want to find it  noncompliant. And set the dates.  

Was that a flower bed or was that also part  of your problem?  

It was flowers and weeds around  the back. Kind of hard, because  I couldn't really  walk back there, to complete the  inspection. I was only able to see  what I could see from around the  fence. It is padlock. It has gone  all away the -- it has gone all  the way around. 3 to 4 feet tall  in the back.  

So there is stuff on the right-hand  side?  

Yes.  >> That  is all considered to be part of  the problem?  

Yes.  

What was the problem? The guy  doesn't live there, or what?  

The guy doesn't live there anymore  and the company took over, the management  company. And they are claiming that  they are going to service it.  

I bet they are getting paid to  do that, aren't they?  >> Evidence  in the testimony provided today,  we have a finding of noncompliance,  with a compliance date of December fifth, hearing to impose fines  by December 16.  

Second.  

December 19.  

Second. 

All those in favor, signify by  saying I.  

Opposed like sign. Motion carries.  

Nobody can find the key to the  padlock.  

So, we have requests 
     to reduce fines. But nobody is here.  If they are not here ...  

Oh, someone is here?  

They are not here. They requested  this, no. 

That 1213 David Drive?  

You are withdrawing 201-7395?  

Yes, we are not going to hear  that. They requested to be here.  They are not here.  

So you are withdrawing it?  

Yes, I am just not going to,  they requested to be here. 

Draw the request.  

It can always be resubmitted.  

I think we just read --  I think we just redraw --  I think we just withdraw the request.  >> What about Rocco?  

That was my fault. At the last  hearing, I requested an order imposing  find lien for the find start tomorrow.  However, due to me not researching  it properly, there was,  no, I did it. It was me. He did  have a , an inspection that did pass, like  just a few days before. And so, I am not sure how to, it should've  been an amended order of noncompliance  is what it should have been. Not  an order imposing find lien. I'm  not sure how do we fix it?  

Issue a first amended order  of noncompliance. 

We did order, there was an order  imposing find lien, so we need to  make that go away because it should  never have been.  

We do that with the first amended  order.  

That would solve the problem.  

It would be a first amended order,  noncompliance with the hearing to  impose fine, December 20?  

It is in order imposing find  lien, it has already been imposed. So it would be a first amended  order imposing find lien? 

We are trying to stop it from  starting tomorrow?  

Correct.  >> Amended order imposing find lien,  it would have to be.  

Okay. It would have to be an  amended order ...  

 For the December 19.  

Actually, the permit is good until the middle  of April, now.  

Okay, we will make it ...  

You want an amended order imposing  fine/lien.  

Yeah.  

Moved by Harry.  

Second.  

Second by Don.  

This was a 260, Rocco Pissarro,  all those in favor, say I.  Motion carries. 

Good job everybody.  

Okay, so don't forget about  your holiday breakfast. 

Are you cooking?  

I am not. I wasn't told to. And  then what about, do we do a little  something for Mister right -- Mr. Wright and his short steppingstone  between this and the state Senate?  

A long time ago, I sent him a  text saying don't forget about me  when you are famous.  

He said oh, never.  

I brought these the other day,  and I said we are really going to  miss him.  

Oh. Okay, welcome to Keith, nice job. And  then you probably heard ,  and then is there anything from  the board attorney? I guess not.  

Is he gone?  

We still need to consider  ...   >> And are no longer on the board.  

Joe and Ken, right.  >> 
     Do you know what is going on with  Ken? I tried to reach him and didn't  get an answer.  

You can?  >> She may.  

Once we close.  

You. Anything from the staff  attorney?  

I got the clue.  

Okay. And from ... nothing?  

Okay, anything from staff?  

Thank you very much.   

With that, we adjourn at 12:45  PM. 

Great job.  

Now you can tell us. [ Meeting adjourned. ]