Clermont Code Enforcement meeting Transcript 5/19/26

12:56 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Clermont Cold Enforcement Board. meeting.
13:04 At this time, if you can, I would like to ask everyone to please stand so we can say I pledge allegiance to the flag.
13:14 I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation
13:23 indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.
13:34 At this time, uh we need to go over the uh minutes for March 16th and April 29th.
13:43 Uh if everyone has reviewed the minutes for March and April,
13:51 do I have a motion to approve both? Uh motion to approve the March 16th and April 29th meeting minutes.
13:59 Thank you. Thank you. All in favor?
14:02 I I. Motion pass.
14:20 At this time, I'd like to welcome everyone to the May 18, 2026 City of Clermont Code Enforcement Board meeting. Before we begin, I would like
14:29 to advise everyone about the procedures that govern appearances before this board.
14:34 This meeting is open to the public under Florida's government in the Sunshine Law and it's being recorded on YouTube. The
14:44 code enforcement board is acting in a quasi judicial capacity when considering individual cases. However, every effort
14:52 will be made to hear all persons having relative evidence or arguments to offer in accordance with the rules for such proceedings.
15:02 We ask that each person who speaks before the code enforcement board sign the sign-in sheet located on the table up front.
15:10 After opening remarks, all those who intend to speak today will be sworn in or affirmed. When asked if a respondent
15:18 is present for your case, please come up to the podium.
15:23 All proceedings before this board are electronically recorded. Please speak directly into the microphone at the
15:30 podium and state your name and address clearly for the record. Additionally, in order to keep the meeting moving in a
15:39 timely fashion, please limit your comments to only information related to the case being
15:46 presented. The city of Clermont has the burden of proving a violation exists.
15:53 The city presents their case and then the respondent presents theirs. Once all cases where respondents are present have
16:01 been heard, the board will then hear the remaining cases. Each party may question witnesses offered on behalf of the other
16:09 party. Additionally, the board members and their attorney may question those appearing before the board.
16:17 This board will then make its decision based upon the evidence and testimony presented by both parties. The board's
16:24 role is to determine if a violation exists and if so in most cases set a date for the violation to be corrected and set a fine if compliance is not met.
16:36 It is not the board's role to advise you of a specific method or act that you can take to come into compliance.
16:44 The code enforcement board is appointed by the city of Clermont to review alleged violations of city of Clermont
16:51 code of ordinance fairly and objectively.
16:55 The members its members are volunteers and not employees of the city. The board authority is limited to determining if a
17:04 violation of the code exists. It does not have the authority to change the codes or ordinance. Although you may
17:12 have evidence, argument, or circumstances that could justify being excused from compliance with the
17:19 applicable code, you are advised that this board does not have the authority to grant you an excuse. Such an excuse
17:28 is commonly referred to as a variance or exemption and may be granted through other procedures such as application to
17:35 the city, but not by this code enforcement board. To avoid interference with cases being presented to this
17:42 board, all cell phones are to be turned off or silenced while in chambers. Thank you.
17:54 Do we have any witness that want to testify today? Please stand.
17:58 Yep. So, at this time, if you're here for a case um and you wish to give testimony, I'd have to swear in the city's officers who are going to be testifying today and you. It's okay if
18:07 you're a member of the public or a neighbor and don't know if you want to speak but then want to speak. It's okay.
18:13 Just when you come up, let me know and I'll swear you in. But if you know you're going to be speaking on a case today, if you would please raise your right hand. You can remain seated.
18:22 Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in these proceedings will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you.
18:38 Good evening. My name is Avery Diane and I'm the assistant city attorney. I'm just going to go over the agenda for tonight. Um we will start with um
18:48 unfinished business. Um item one, case number C24100015.
18:56 The respondent is Uklites D. Corona Gutierrez. Um we will then move to item two case number C252006.
19:07 Um the respondent is Reliant Flips LLC.
19:10 Um we will move to item three case number C2490026
19:18 uh respondent Kendra Elam. Um, item four, case number C257007,
19:28 uh, respondent group Oinko LLC.
19:32 We will then move to new business, item six, uh, case number 260065,
19:41 the respondent, John P. and D. Adams, family LP. We will then move to item
19:48 seven, case number 25 0000149, uh, respondent POP Florida Properties
19:56 LLC. Then item eight, case number 250023 203, I'm sorry, and case number 260083.
20:10 Um, that respondent is R&M Retail LP. We will then move to item 10 which will be
20:18 case number 2500000090 um with respondent Seokus Properties LLC. Thank you.
20:46 Uh, good evening board. Andrew Snodgrass, City of Clermont Code Enforcement.
20:56 Uh, this is case number C or I'm sorry, 2410-0015 3262 Hanging Tide Street, Winter Garden.
21:08 This is for a motion for order to impose a fine.
21:13 This case was heard back in July of yeah July 21st, 2025. This is the finding of facts from when the board heard this case.
21:23 Board provided uh compliance date of September 20th.
21:32 This is the notice of hearing a motion to impose the fine.
21:41 So, the owner was found in violation by the code enforcement board on July 1st, 2025. The board set a compliance date of
21:47 September 20 20th, 2025 or fines would acrue in the amount of $150 per day. The
21:55 property is still not in compliance to this date. Um, so 240 days times 150 per day would make it 36,000 as of today.
22:07 Uh October 15, 2024, complaint was received. October 22nd, the owner requested a 60-day extension, which was
22:15 provided. Courtesy notice was given with 20 a December 22nd compliance date.
22:20 January, owner requested another extension, 30-day extension given, letter was provided. February, owner
22:26 submitted a variance application for the uh the build that he did without a permit.
22:33 Um March 13th, home was listed for sale.
22:38 On April 8th, the variance was denied at the evening council meeting. 60 days provided to the owner to obtain the permits.
22:46 Um July, I'm sorry, July, the code for the board heard it. 60 days provided. August plans
22:53 were submitted for u multiple permits online. All were denied due to missing or incorrect documents. February of 26,
23:01 the final inspection called in for the addition. Um, the permit did not include the sidewalk and the driveway
23:09 extensions, and the plans do not match what was on the property. They didn't change anything on the property. They just submitted the plans for uh for changes.
23:19 March 2026, met with the contractor at city hall, discussed the need for zoning clearances, variances, and that scope of work um does not match the plan submitted.
23:29 In April 2026, the owner came to the counter um met with myself and my manager. We discussed removing the
23:36 extended driveway and the patio pavers, um which is the only thing left to get permitted for the property. Um they are in the setback and they would require a
23:44 variance to remain in place. Uh none of that has been removed.
23:48 This is the property as of today. Just kind of showing the property lines, those red lines are a approximate
23:55 property line. Uh per the plans, the driveway, um the original driveway comes to the
24:03 property line. So those added pavers definitely definitely go into the setback area.
24:13 So staff recommendation is just to approve the request to enter an order imposing a fine in the amount of $36,000.
24:20 That's all I have. You have any questions for me?
24:22 Madam Chair, can I ask a question real quick? Yes, sir.
24:25 For the o order imposing a fine of $36,000, uh, are you also asking for which will continue to acrue until the property comes into compliance?
24:33 Yes, sir. Thank you.
24:41 Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this case? See?
24:51 Okay. Does anyone on the board have any further questions? Is this a general contractor?
25:00 There was a general contractor involved. Yes. Press. Excuse me.
25:07 Mr. Brown, they're asking you to press your uh press your mic. Yeah. In order so it could be recorded.
25:17 Could you ask a question, please?
25:19 Yeah. The question was, was there a general contractor on the project?
25:23 Yes, there was a general contractor involved after the fact. After the fact? Yes.
25:27 I'm not sure who did the install. just after the fact the who submitted the a general contractor a general
25:34 contractor did submit the permit was not an owner builder if memory serves me correctly on this one here was the homeowner who did the
25:41 original work on that is that correct I think that's yes I believe so I'm not 100% correct but I do believe so yes
25:48 if memory serves me correctly yeah this was before my time so but I I
25:55 have no mercy for general contractors They do this all the time. Um they get people in trouble. Um the general contractor is the one who
26:03 submitted the plans that uh did not show the correct dimensions or what was actually installed on site.
26:09 They called for a final inspection and the um what was installed did not match the plans
26:17 and the variance request was for I I the request was for setbacks to the rear.
26:23 Was it because the building was built back too far? I gather the gazebo was back too far. The patio and gazebo were uh in the rear setback.
26:32 Yeah. Okay.
26:36 And as of date, uh they're still not in compliance.
26:40 The rear patio is in compliance. It's pulled closer to the home, so it is out of the setback. There's still um
26:48 violations for setbacks on both sides of the house along with no permit for a few things that were installed.
26:55 Have you heard anything from the the owner of the property in April of 2026? I want to say I can't give you the exact date. Um but it was
27:04 approximately 3 weeks ago. Um he came in and um the owner came in spoke to me and my manager about the situation and said
27:12 that he was going to remove the papers and as of today they haven't been removed. No.
27:18 See no this is a picture as of this morning May 18th at 108.
27:24 the driveway extension, the side pavers, and then uh did not go into the rear.
27:30 So, I could not see if that was still in the setback on the left side of the home.
27:35 And the town recommendation is $36,000 imposing a fine of $36,000 continuing to
27:43 acrue for every day the property remains in violation as it is still not in compliance. Yeah.
27:51 Okay. We got to be in the house. Can I get a motion?
27:59 Yeah, I'll make a motion um to um find Yeah. for case number C2410-000015
28:09 that we impose a fine for negligence that they failed to comply with the
28:15 request of the city and that's I find them guilty. There's no there really is
28:22 no yeah the gravity of the violations uh uh any any action by the violator um to
28:32 correct and and previous violations since this is an ongoing violation obviously.
28:39 So before there's a second, since this is simply a motion to impose the fine
28:47 that's accured, you already have your order finding them guilty, setting a time for compliance. The the motion, you don't need to refind them guilty. It's
28:55 just to it's just a motion to um uh impose the fine in the amount of
29:01 $36,000, which shall continue to acrue until the property comes into compliance. Thank you.
29:10 And that would be your motion, sir? Yes. Do I have a second? I second. All in favor?
29:17 I I. Motion pass.
29:46 All right. This next case is 25502-00006.
29:51 This is 550 Distant Avenue. This is a motion for an order to impose a fine.
29:56 The um the owner is here to speak and has submitted a uh fine reduction request as well.
30:08 So, like I said, this is for 550 Distant Avenue.
30:11 This came to the board on July 21st, 2025 as well.
30:19 Board provided 30 days to come into compliance.
30:27 the original um affidavit of compliance, the updated affidavit of compliance.
30:34 What changed on there was that the the original violation was corrected on October 29th. Spoke with the owner. He provided some documents from the pool
30:41 company stating when a the pool was able to be cleaned. The pool was actually in compliance on October 11th per the pool company. So, I backdated the fines to October 11th.
30:54 It's the notice of hearing and a motion for imposing a fine.
31:02 The owner was found in violation on July 1st or July 21st, 2025.
31:07 Compliance date of August 20th or fines would acrew in 150 per day. Property complaint came into compliance on October 11th was in violation for 52
31:16 days. 52 days times $150 per day would be $7,800.
31:22 Staff recommendation is to approve the request to enter an order imposing a fine the amount of $7,800. With that said, as I said, the the owner is here.
31:31 He did submit a um fine reduction request. So, I'll move forward to that one.
31:39 Just a quick timeline. The owner stated energy company had faulty equipment which pre prevented the home from having power. So, the pool could not be
31:46 maintained or cleaned. The fence was erected around the property in October of 2025. Um, this was after the board heard the case.
31:56 Uh, no permit for the fence, so a new case was started. That violation prevented the fine reduction packet from being heard um simply because the city
32:05 will not uh hear a fine reduction if you still have violations on your property.
32:11 I did meet with the owner on site and explain the fence permit requirement and request the info from the pool company when the pool was clean.
32:18 Property was posted for sale in November of 2025.
32:22 December of 25, the affidavit of compliance was sent out in the amount of 10,500.
32:29 January 23rd, 2026, affidavit of compliance backdated from October 30th to October 11th per the pool company's
32:35 date of cleaning that change the fine amount from 105 to 7,800.
32:41 February 18th, I received a timeline from Duke Energy regarding repairs made to the service connection.
32:52 This is the email from uh Duke Energy provided by the owner.
33:16 And this is the fine reduction request from the owner.
33:23 The proposed reduced fine amount would be 150.
33:57 That's all I have. You have any questions for me?
34:00 Is there a staff recommendation with respect to the reduction in fine? Uh, in respect to production of fine.
34:07 Normally we would do we would normally request a 10% pay.
34:12 So 10% of the fine be paid for a residential property.
34:17 Andrew, I noticed that um in the check off sheet that the owner, it says the property owner was not cooperative, hasn't been cooperative with the staff.
34:28 Is that any what was the reason for that?
34:31 Uh in the beginning, no they weren't.
34:33 Yes. In the beginning, there was no contact. I spoke with several workers that were on site, left business cards, uh, spoke with the owner several times,
34:41 and I think I met with him twice on property or maybe once on property and once here at city hall.
34:48 Is this LLC? Is this a like a they're fixing up a home to sell it or is that what the idea? You don't know.
34:56 I believe so just by the name, but I'm not entirely sure. You could ask the owner about that. They need to know the rules. Yeah.
35:07 property is for sale and um per the the closing agent that I spoke with today, they sent me an email. They do plan on closing on Wednesday.
35:19 Madam Chair, I do have one question for the city. Yes, sir. It's a little odd because this is a motion to impose the fine, but it's sim usually you'd have
35:27 the fine imposed, then you'd have the reduction request, and then you hear them separately, but they're being heard at the same time. Yes.
35:34 So, um, it is the the city's request that if if the board wishes to consider a reduction
35:43 that it impose whatever reduction in the 7,800 amount that's due as their order imposing the fine.
35:52 Yes. Okay.
35:53 Yes. So if you would like to reduce define here the fine reduction then whatever you would like to reduce it to I would like the staff recommendation would then be to impose that amount to
36:02 be paid within hopefully 30 days.
36:10 You said there's someone here to speak on behalf of this case. Yes.
36:14 Is that person present? Could you please come to the podium and state your name and address right here?
36:23 My name is David Buckles, 550 Distant.
36:27 Um, yes. So, in regards in regards to this, I believe with the time that they provided, Duke Energy had a tree limit
36:35 hit the power line. Power line shorted the panel at the house, it was extenduating circumstances beyond our control, provided that timeline, which
36:43 was why I put that in the reduction with the reduction request of the 150. So, um, in reference to playing phone tag in the beginning, yeah, Andrew and I
36:52 weren't able to communicate in the beginning, but him, the staff, everyone's been helpful in helping me kind of get where we needed cuz we did end up putting a fence to hide the ugly
37:00 pool, but then the fence people didn't didn't file the permit. So, then I chased in, we did the permit. So, it was a little bit of a runaround, but we got that we got that situation handled. We
37:09 got the uh the pool cleaned as soon as the power company was able to fix it. Um, and and that's it.
37:15 I have a question. Um, so based on the timeline that was presented from Duke Energy,
37:22 there's a few months that passed that doesn't match your timeline.
37:27 Can you pull that back up? Because I think I reached out service order number was placed on 71.
37:35 Right. But in your in your the power line messed up in April.
37:40 So when I told when I told that to Andrew, you're correct. And that's why he said, "Hey, whatever documentation you can give me from Duke to back that up, I got this." And so when I brought
37:48 it in, I even I think it's might even be in our email communications. I said, "Hey, I was off a little bit with the timelines, but here's what we got."
37:56 Because yeah, it it was it was like that for a few months. Does anyone live in the home? No.
38:05 Are you the owner or the contractor? No. Okay. Thank you.
38:13 Any further questions?
38:14 What are the power requirements for the pool?
38:17 It they had it was like a it was a broken neutral. They had to come fix something with the exterior meter from their service line to the house.
38:26 Um you couldn't acquire a emergency generator to get the pool going. No one was living there. No. Yeah.
38:35 Okay.
38:37 And even if I wanted to put a generator there, someone it would be a noisy generator with gas and someone would have to man it regularly.
38:45 Yeah, that makes sense. Any further questions?
38:56 I I do have another question. So, the tree fell the the power was damaged in April.
39:04 Um, it came before the board in July.
39:08 Duke fixed it in July. So, what happened between July and October that caused the fine to be
39:16 so much? Why wasn't in in compliance if it wasn't if it was fixed?
39:21 So, back going back on the timeline to the April uh time frame, we pulled permits originally and we had like three
39:29 of the panels replaced at the house, interior, exterior, and the sub panel.
39:34 So, we had previously done like extensive, excuse me, electrical work there. And so, when this had happened, like it was it it we had we had to call
39:43 Duke for a separate disconnect while they were doing the exterior panel. So, there were a number of times that there was electrical work being done that that
39:50 did cause the pool to go unmaintained, but the most severe one was when the when the meter was out, when the broken neutral happened.
40:03 When was the Andrew, when was the when was the fine start? It was uh or when was the original?
40:11 Uh I believe August 20th, 2025.
40:13 August 20th. So, where did the April date come from again, Christopher? Sir, um, from you. You wrote
40:22 That's what I wrote down. Yeah. My timeline was off by by that.
40:26 Yeah. You wrote that it the you lost power in April. So then from April until it came before the board on the 21st and
40:34 then based on the Duke, there was a service request put in around July the 21st. and then it wasn't
40:43 as of October it was still not in compliance.
40:47 So in reference to the April I could be off with the timeline that could just could just be a clerical error on on my part with uh it's remembering exactly
40:55 when that incident occurred. But when it became an issue and I was trying to tell Andrew what happened it was like hey dude this is what happened. He said
41:03 prove it and here's here's me proving it. My just my recollection of the dates are a little off. The only reason I asked that, it would just be hard for me
41:10 to to accept your request if this happened in April based on your timeline and it
41:18 wasn't until July that something was actually called in because that's not an oops.
41:23 Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I don't think it was that long the pool was I don't think the pool was for months before you initiated the
41:32 violation. Correct. Uh, I'd have to go back and see exactly when the proper when the um when the case opened.
41:39 I think I said July 21st.
41:41 That's when it was heard before the board.
41:43 Yes, that's when it was heard before the board, which usually takes a few a month or two.
41:48 From the findings of fact, um, from the order that was issued in July, it says the violation. Yes. February 5th.
41:57 February 5th.
42:10 Any further questions?
42:16 So, Madam Chair, this one's also a little strange because there you have the competing motion to impose the fine with also the reduction request,
42:24 but the so long as you know the the maximum fine is the seven $7,800. That's the 150 for the number of days that it
42:33 was out of compliance until October 11th, I believe. Is that right? Yes.
42:37 Um, so you all have the discretion to impose total amount of fine somewhere in that range, just not over 7,800. And
42:46 that would be what the order is for. It' be a motion or be an order motion to uh impose a fine and such and such amount.
42:55 Would the motion include the reduction?
42:57 Right. So, if you wanted the respondent has requested $150 uh total fine. So, if that's what you wanted to do, you would
43:04 be a motion to impose a fine in a total amount of $150 if that's what you wanted to do.
43:11 And the town is recommending 10% which would be $780. 10% reduction.
43:18 No, 10 reduced down to 10% of the final amount. Yes. Reduce down to 10%. Sorry. Which would be 780.
43:26 Okay.
43:27 Do you have access to my permit records or is that something that I could like pull up while we're talking about it? I don't have access to it here.
43:33 Yeah. Okay. The reason I was asking that is because trying we we did extensive electrical work here and because we did
43:40 that, it took multiple rounds of troubleshooting before we even called Duke. And that's there's there's a lot of that stuff that did go on in
43:49 reference to what Chris was saying for timeline sake too. So, we've had power on and off. We've had permits. We do have record of the perm, but I probably should have been a little bit more
43:56 prepared for for that portion of it. Um, but before we knew it was a Duke problem, the electricians were doing what they were doing to try and
44:04 troubleshoot and they said, "I got nothing. You got to call Duke." So then we that's when we did call Duke. I see.
44:17 Do I have a motion? I'll make a motion.
44:20 Thank you. Um, I'd like to make a motion uh that we that the board orders, I'm sorry, in
44:27 case number 252-00006, make a motion that we enforce a fine uh an administrative fine in the amount of $7,800.
44:37 I further moved that the fine then is to be reduced to $1,000 payable by June 15, 2026.
44:53 Do I have a second? Second. All in favor?
44:57 I I motion pass.
45:00 And just a question for the board. If the fine's not paid by I forgot the date. June by June 15th, the amount shall revert to the original amount.
45:07 Can we make that a separate motion just so that's included in order? Would you like me to start over from the beginning? I'd like to make a second motion that if the
45:15 fine is not paid by June 15, 2026, the original fine amount shall revert back to $7,800. Second.
45:23 All in favor?
45:24 I I motion passed.
45:29 There was just one question because the house, I believe, is closing on Wednesday. So we would just ask that the
45:37 fine needs to be imposed immediately so that it can get onto the settlement.
45:43 That was that was the first part of this motion. Okay.
45:54 He's going way back.
46:11 I have a quick question for counselor here. Um, so with this situation here with this uh property potentially
46:18 closing soon um in the city of Clermont, do those fines run with the land? They do. Okay. Thank you.
46:48 Good evening, code enforcement board. Joshua Cortez for the city of Clermont. Code enforcement.
46:55 This is going to be for item number three. Case number C2409-000026.
47:03 The respondent is Kendra Alam.
47:12 This is going to be a motion for order imposing fine.
47:19 This is the finding of facts dated March 17th, 2025. finding the respondent in violations of the sections stated.
47:34 This is the uh notice that was sent to the respondent in this case.
47:41 Uh this is a photo that was presented at the uh initial code enforcement board hearing showing some of the accessory
47:49 structures that were um placed or installed constructed on the property.
47:58 Another one.
48:01 And the last one, picture of the property.
48:11 These are the three permits that the respondent needed.
48:16 Uh 25106 was actually never issued. That was rejected. Um the issued portion cannot
48:26 be removed from the software, but it was rejected. The plans were never approved.
48:31 Uh permit number 255011 um that was an issued permit. It is now since expired.
48:40 And lastly, permit 2500 0112 for a screen enclosure was also never issued.
48:55 the uh owner was found ini violation by the code enforcement board and set a compliance date of May 16, 2025 or fines
49:05 will begin to acrew at 150 per day. Uh as of today, the fine will have acrewed to $55,050
49:15 for failure to comply for 367 days. The staff recommendation is to approve the
49:22 motion for an order imposing the fine. I have nothing further if you have any questions for me.
49:31 Just uh similar question as I asked in the last case for the the fine and a total amount of $55,50
49:38 uh which shall continue to acrue until the property comes into compliance. Is that your motion?
49:42 That is correct. Yeah. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you.
49:45 Uh Mr. Cortez, uh any contact with the homeowner? Uh contact has been pretty minimal. Um both myself and the code
49:52 enforcement manager Eevee have on several occasions tried to contact her.
49:56 Uh on the few occasions that we can speak to her via phone, uh the phone calls are not very productive. Um she's
50:04 not combative or argumentative. It's just the phone calls do not yield any results. Okay. Thank you.
50:12 What is the remedy for compliance?
50:16 compliance in this case is that all of the permits be issued.
50:20 And has has there been like what is the reason other than letting the permit expire? Has there been a reason why permits have been rejected? They're just not submitting the proper paperwork.
50:32 Um it's I would have to look to see what specifically the plans examiners are citing. Um but I know in one case
50:41 um the issue has to deal with um those French doors for example were not a like forlike change out. Those doors
50:51 were placed on the side of the structure where there were no previously doors.
50:55 Yeah. So that created some issues for both the respondent and you know and permitting uh frankly when trying to understand what was actually done on the property.
51:05 That's just one example. Okay. Thank you.
51:07 But Josh, you had you had shown other permits there that actually were issued though, right? The shed and the
51:16 just the shed was the only one that actually was issued, right? Yeah.
51:19 Yeah. Yep. So 25106 was never actually issued. Um and then the only one that was issued of the bunch is 2511.
51:29  Okay.
51:30 And it's expired. Correct. It was never final. Correct.
51:34 Were any inspections called on that? Can't tell. I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
51:52 Is there anyone here to speak on behalf for this case?
52:00 Okay. Yeah. Okay.
52:12 I'd like to make a motion, please.
52:15 Um, on case C2409-000026,
52:22 I'd like to make a motion um based on the city's request to impose a fine.
52:30 Um what was the fine amount again? 50 55 $55,000 and 50
52:37 and or $55,000 $50 and the fine to continue to acrue for as long as the the address the homeowner is in violation.
52:48 I'll second. All in favor?
52:51 I I motion pass.
52:57 Let's see what we got here. So, this is FC. Okay.
53:30 Okay, moving on to item four. This is case number C2507-00007.
53:40 The respondent is Groupo Sinco LLC.
53:45 The address is 1326 East Avenue.
53:51 This is a fine reduction request.
53:58 This is a screenshot from GIS showing the property's location.
54:04 This is the notice that was sent to the respondent.
54:10 This is the finding of facts from the code enforcement board hearing on November 17th, 2025.
54:18 finding the respondent in violation of the section stated.
54:27 This is the uh respondent's fine reduction uh request packet.
54:37 The respondent in this case is proposing to pay a reduced amount of $100.
54:48 These are some photos that were taken and presented to the code enforcement board at the initial hearing.
55:15 This is showing the permit is uh current and valid.
55:23 The staff recommendation is that the fine amount, which is 7,200,
55:32 be reduced by 80% down to $1,440 to be paid within 30 days, June 17,
55:41 2026, or the fine will revert back to the original amount owed. I have nothing further. if you have any questions for me.
55:51 Yes, I have a question. Uh, this is based on the fact that there wasn't a building permit at the time.
55:58 That is correct. The work was started without a permit.
56:01 Okay. And they did apply for a permit and received it. That is correct.
56:08 So, the only issue is about the uh work permit. Um today there are the today the property is in compliance and um this is
56:18 a reduction request for the respondent and um in response to that reduction request the staff recommendation is that
56:25 the fine be reduced from 7200 down to 1440.
56:33 So I I remember this one. What isn't the owner a contractor?
56:40 The owner I I'm not sure. We have the respondent here. That may be a question for the respondent. Um, if if you want to come up,
56:50 please state your name and address at the podium.
56:58 Hi, my name is Andre Sores, the owner of the house of 1326 East Avenue, Clarmon.
57:06 I'm sorry for my English. I come from Colombia. uh where I live to attend this appointment.
57:16 Erh the project I work with the general contractor as I mentioned on November 17 I aware I
57:25 aware of the submit the plans that were approved with the city and followed the enter inspection approval process accordingly.
57:36 The house will be completed uh this week in accordance with the required codes.
57:43 The house was originally in very poor conditions.
57:47 Now the house will be a beautiful addition to the community.
57:52 I kindly request that you wipe any penalties. I was have incurred. We have
57:59 incurred significant costs. I'm sorry, what my English?
58:05 So, I my question for you is I remember you were here in November. Yeah.
58:10 And I remember I asked you if you were a contractor and you told me you were because I had said to you that being a
58:17 contractor, you should have known about the permits you needed pulled.
58:21 Are you a contractor in the state of Florida?
58:24 Yeah. So the contractor error that you wrote as for your reason for a fine reduction is your error.
58:32 Y does anyone have any further questions?
58:46 Curious about the all the subcontractors, electrical, plumbing.
58:51 Were those all pulled those permits? Uh yes, all of the subs that are associated with permit, you know, they're in good standing. Okay.
58:59 We finished the the project this week with all approved only the final inspection.
59:13 Can I get a motion?
59:30 I'd like to make one, but I'm still a little hung up on my other chair members comment about the contractor part of it
59:38 and, you know, is is staff's reduction really a a good number based on what we we've learned here and how we feel about
59:46 that? That's I'm kind of hung up on that right now. So maybe a little guidance from others may may help in that situation.
59:53 If that's a question towards me, then I would say no. Staff's request isn't wouldn't wouldn't I wouldn't follow staff's request. It would be
1:00:01 significantly more because again that's based on based on the response of
1:00:08 contractor ignorance or error, whatever is written down. That's I can't Yeah. I can't buy that.
1:00:16 Yeah.
1:00:25 I'd like to go and make a motion in case number 257-00007.
1:00:32 Uh I move that the existing fine be reduced to $3,500 with the stipulation that the reduced fine will be paid to the city of Clermont on or before June
1:00:41 17th, 2026 or the fine will revert back to the original amount owed. Second.
1:00:48 All in favor?
1:00:50 I I motion pass
1:01:37 Yeah, we should.
1:01:44 Okay, moving on to item five. This is going to be for case number C2312-000028
1:01:54 and case number C2402-000057.
1:02:01 The respondent is FCH Properties LLC and the property address is 2480 uh South US Highway 27.
1:02:13 Uh officer, before you begin, when I just want to make sure you want to proceed with this case because when we began you skipped over this one to move to the next case because the respondent wasn't here.
1:02:22 Okay, we're good. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Appreciate it. Got me on that.
1:02:31 Sorry about that board.
1:02:33 All right. Um, this is a screenshot from GIS showing the property's location.
1:02:41 This is the notice that was sent to the respondent.
1:02:46 This is the finding of facts for case number C2312-000028 for the uh hearing that took place on May 20th, 2024.
1:02:59 Um, the respondent was ordered to correct the uh violations on or before June 19th, 2024 or a $250 per day fine would begin to acrue.
1:03:11 Um, this is the finding of facts for case number C2402-000057 that took place on May 20th, 2024.
1:03:20 um where the uh same order was imposed in this case 250 a day for uh any violation continuing past June 19th, 2024.
1:03:32 This is the respondent's uh fine reduction request packet.
1:03:39 The respondent in this case is proposing to pay zero to have the fine waved.
1:03:49 This is a photo that was presented to the code enforcement board um initially.
1:03:55 This is showing erosion, runoff, sedimentation onto an adjacent property.
1:04:01 It's a picture of the property.
1:04:06 For case number C2312-0028, the code enforcement board hearing took place on May 20th, 2024. The property
1:04:15 was in compliance May 19th, 2025. The total days in violation were 333.
1:04:22 The fine owed is 83,250.
1:04:26 Staff's recommendation is to reduce that fine uh 80% down to uh 16,650
1:04:34 to be paid within 90 days or the fine will revert back to the original amount.
1:04:39 This is the case summary for case number C2402-000057.
1:04:45 The code enforcement board hearing took place on May 20th, 2024. The property was in compliance on March 2nd, 2026.
1:04:52 The total days in violation are 621. The total fine amount having accured is uh 100 155,250.
1:05:02 The staff's recommendation is uh again it's an 80% reduction down to $31,050 to be paid within 90 days.
1:05:11 Uh and this is just sort of a total breakdown showing kind of the big picture. Um the total fines across both properties has accured to 238,500.
1:05:23 Staff's recommendation of 80% would bring the reduction down to 47,700 to be paid within 90 days. I have
1:05:31 nothing further if you have any questions for me.
1:05:34 And just to clarify, we are asking for two separate orders, one for each case. Thank you.
1:05:41 Uh and the respondent is here, uh Salem.
1:05:48 Would you like to step forward to the podium and state your name and address, please?
1:05:56 And sir, did I swear you in when we started? Come. Okay. Would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do.
1:06:04 Thank you, sir.
1:06:10 So, I appreciate the staff recommendation.
1:06:14 It was a very difficult situation as I was an owner operator in that business and the business suffered some serious
1:06:24 hardship and we dealt with a lot of a lot of back and forth with lenders,
1:06:32 with manufacturers, and fought to stay in business and keep everything current. We ended up bringing
1:06:40 in a tenant, as I think most of you know, and that was a struggle to make happen, but
1:06:47 it did happen. And during that time, we did our best to stay on top of all of the issues.
1:06:56 We Meaning me personally, I had folks that were in charge of this project that were no longer with us. They had they
1:07:04 had worked in the business, but with the transition of the business, financial hardship, we lost staff. And it was
1:07:12 really it was a major learning curve for me to understand the issues and resolve the
1:07:18 issues and to be able to fund the work that needed to be done. We did maintain regular communication. We
1:07:26 have a in place now. Um, and we did finally square up all the issues.
1:07:37 Sir, if you could just state your name and address for the record. I'm sorry. I know about that. Salem Hass and it's 6821
1:07:45 South Point Drive North, Jacksonville, Florida, 32216.
1:07:53 So, I just and and you're asking for zero. Yes, sir.
1:08:00 Um, may I ask I I understand hardships.
1:08:05 Um, how do you just for me my my my question, how do you justify no liability though?
1:08:15 It certainly had nothing to do with neglect. It had nothing to do with any ill intent whatsoever on our part.
1:08:24 I don't like to not accept blame.
1:08:27 Ultimately, I'm the one responsible. But due to the business and the hardships that the business experienced and really the struggles that we went through over
1:08:36 24 month period, I was just in no way in position to truly understand everything that needed to be completed.
1:08:44 And I had a GC involved early on. That GC was no longer involved. And it was an
1:08:51 act of Congress just to get through that period, get a tenant in, try to survive that financial hardship and dealing with
1:09:01 some personal issues throughout that time, mother dying of cancer, taking care of an elderly father. It was just a score for that period.
1:09:10 I have one question for you. um how cooperative through the process?
1:09:16 The respondent has been extremely cooperative and and communive to toward code enforcement.
1:09:22 Uh I also have a question. I was looking at the photographs and correct me if I'm wrong. Um
1:09:31 yeah. Oh, right there it shows December 28th, 2023.
1:09:37 So this is like two and a half years ago. When when do can you tell me when the uh
1:09:44 violation was sent to the uh property owner? Yeah. And when it was posted.
1:09:53 Yes. Give me just a moment.
1:10:14 I think if it'll help, it's on uh paragraph two of the findings of fact, conclusions of law and order.
1:10:22 That is correct. The notice of violation for that for the violations pictured in that slide is December 29th, 2023.
1:10:34 And for the other case, just for the record, just a second here.
1:10:44 It's in the same paragraph. It's going to be February 23rd, 2023.
1:10:57 February 2023.
1:11:00 February 23rd, 2023. Joshua, what case was that? What case number was that?
1:11:05 That's going to be for case number C2402-000057. Okay, it's the second one.
1:11:13 Both cases were presented together. Uh, initially what kind of a project was it?
1:11:22 It wasn't a project. Um, code enforcement found the conditions on the property just in in our travels.
1:11:32 And this is due to the erosion.
1:11:34 So the there was one case that centered around erosion and runoff. Uh and then there was another case that centered
1:11:42 around permits that had not been finaled. Um and that was the case that went on for the longest period of time
1:11:50 trying to get all of these different permits final.
1:11:56 So the permits were the February 2023 and then the the soil Um the silt travel was on the December 2023.
1:12:05 Correct. Yeah.
1:12:19 Does the board have any further questions?
1:12:32 And this is resolved now.
1:12:34 Yes. Uh the property is in full compliance at this time.
1:12:39 How long has Camping World been a tenant now? About 18 months.
1:12:48 Okay. Thank you. Okay.
1:13:02 Can I get a motion, please? It's a tricky one.
1:13:09 They have to be separate, right? Yes. One for each case.
1:13:16 If you'd like to see both of those slides and their breakdowns.
1:13:20 Yeah, I can go back and forth just
1:13:33 and this one with the reduction to uh 16,650.
1:13:37 That would be for case which case number?
1:13:40 That would be for case number C2312-000028. Okay, thank you.
1:13:46 Oh, I'm sorry. I see it right here.
1:14:00 All right. Nobody wants to jump on it. Okay.
1:14:11 All right. Uh, I'd like to make a motion in case number C2312-000028.
1:14:18 I move that the existing fine be reduced to $15,000 and stipulate that the fine be paid to
1:14:26 the city of Clermont honor before 90 days is
1:14:35 August 17th paid by August 17th 2026 or the fine will revert to the original amount owed which would be 83,2 $250.
1:14:49 That is correct. Thank you.
1:14:52 And we want to second. We continue with the second motion or we want to vote on this? No, we're going to vote on this. Okay.
1:15:00 I'll second it. All in favor?
1:15:02 I I I. Motion pass. All right.
1:15:06 Okay. Uh, in case C24- or C2402-000057, uh, I move that the existing fine be
1:15:15 reduced to $20,000, uh, with the stipulation that the reduction the reduced fine will be paid to the city of Clermont Honor before
1:15:24 August 17th, 2026. A failure to pay the the total reduced fine will res will result
1:15:33 in the fine reverting to its original amount of $155,250. Second.
1:15:42 All in favor?
1:15:43 I I Motion passed. Thank you.
1:16:31 Okay. Make sure I have enough here.
1:16:38 Okay, we're going to move to item eight.
1:16:44 This is going to be case number 25-0000203 and case number 26-000083.
1:17:00 The respondent is R&M Retail LP.
1:17:12 The property address uh for the first case is going to be uh
1:17:20 16526 State Road 50 and 1042 Highway 50.
1:17:27 The violations, the sections cited in this case are going to be section 117-8
1:17:35 prohibited signs subsections 11:15 and 22 as well as the section 302.3 from the
1:17:42 international property maintenance code sidewalks and driveways.
1:17:48 Section 117-8 prohibited signs exceptions shall be unlawful to erect cause to be erect maintain or cause to
1:17:55 be maintained any sign described as follows banner signs signs in the public right of way uh or on public utility
1:18:04 poles and trees and sub subsection 22 any other signs that are not specifically permitted or
1:18:12 exempted by this chapter. Section 302.3 reads, "Sidewalks, walkways, stairs, driveways, parking spaces, and similar
1:18:20 areas shall be maintain shall be kept kept in a proper state of repair and maintained free from hazardous conditions.
1:18:30 This is a uh screenshot from GIS, a Lake County Property Appraiser, showing the parcels.
1:18:41 Parcels two and three are under the same uh information. They they come up with the same alternate key, same parcel
1:18:49 identifier, uh same property description.
1:18:58 Notices of violation were sent April 2nd, 2026. The compliance date was April 29th.
1:19:05 These were delivered on April 6th. The notices of hearing were sent on April 20th.
1:19:11 Uh notices of hearing were delivered on April 27th.
1:19:17 The compliance status as of today's hearing is the property is in partial compliance.
1:19:26 This is the notice of violation for both parcels, both properties.
1:19:33 Um, these two notices were sent together and show as having been delivered on April 6.
1:19:46 This is the notice of hearing listing both case numbers.
1:19:51 And uh, this was delivered on April 27th.
1:20:00 This is an email from a Lake County staff member, Kim Rodrik. Um, when asked
1:20:07 about the sidewalk in this case, um, Kim's and the county's position is that it is outside of the rightway and it is
1:20:16 the responsibility of the shopping plaza to maintain.
1:20:22 This is a picture of the property in December of 2025.
1:20:30 Um, code enforcement responded to a citizen complaint uh alleging that the sidewalk had essentially become unusable
1:20:37 to the citizenry due to uh vegetation obstruction and uh other conditions.
1:20:47 This is another picture just past the vegetation shown in the last slide.
1:21:11 This is a another more recent picture on 4226
1:21:17 um pictured in the back of the image towards the top of the screen. You can see a lighter patch of sidewalk. That
1:21:26 portion of the sidewalk was repaired by the respondent.
1:21:30 And when I went back for a follow-up inspection after some of the vegetation had been removed and cleared, I could see that
1:21:39 there were still issues with the sidewalk in other locations.
1:21:44 Up to this point, uh I I was in communication with the property manager, um a lady named Shauna, uh mostly via email.
1:21:59 This is a picture of the plaza itself showing some signage, some prohibited signage.
1:22:18 Picture taken 42926 showing prohibited signage offsite.
1:22:28 Photo taken 42926 showing uh still damaged portions of sidewalk.
1:22:37 Again 42926 sidewalk partially obstructed with vegetation.
1:22:44 A picture taken today showing signage. More signage.
1:22:52 More signage.
1:22:56 This is uh also a picture that was taken today showing that portions of the sidewalk are still obstructed with vegetation.
1:23:08 Another photo photo showing damaged portions of the sidewalk.
1:23:16 more photos of other areas.
1:23:25 The staff recommendation in this case is to is to find the respondent was in violation of section 117 subsection 15
1:23:35 and to find the respondent is in violation still of all the other sections stated. Additionally, to assess
1:23:42 a fine of $250 for each case individually per day for every day that the property remains in violation after June 17th, 2026.
1:23:53 I have nothing further. If you have any questions for me, and I believe the respondent is here.
1:23:57 How um do you you may or may not have this answer. Um, do you by any chance know approximately
1:24:07 linear feet of sidewalk they're responsible for and how how much of that needs to be like how large are these areas?
1:24:15 Um, I don't have the the total amount.
1:24:18 It was more we're more focused on the particular portions in question. Um, but but just the affected sections are
1:24:25 or how many how many affected sections are there? It it spans approximately 200 feet.
1:24:31 Okay. So it would be the length of that that strip that's down along that side. Yes, sir. Okay.
1:24:37 And that sidewalk would be considered uh on the property of the uh parcel, not uh
1:24:47 it's not like a public sidewalk. You understand what I'm what I'm asking?
1:24:53 Yes, ma'am. Yeah. So in this case, um it's the lake, uh Lake County, um is advising that it is outside of the
1:25:01 rightway, not the responsibility, and that the responsibility of the sidewalk um is on the plaza. So it's it's on the
1:25:08 respondent, and that of course is the position of the city of Clermont as well. And okay, I'll go back.
1:25:15 Is there a mall management company? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Say that again. A mall management company. Like a property management company. Yeah.
1:25:22 Yes, sir. And the representative is uh Shauna as she is here. It's V3 Capital Group I believe.
1:25:28 Okay, I see. And one other question. Now you say the signage that is illegal.
1:25:36 Are you talking about those signs where people just poke them in the ground and the ones that businesses may put out, you know, those
1:25:44 folding ones, you know, to show their menus and stuff. I just want to be clear on that. Um, so in this case, um, you
1:25:51 know, most of the signage, all the signage I believe is coming from the tenant businesses within the plaza. So I I don't know that there was an example
1:25:59 of any signage that was coming from a company not within that plaza.
1:26:04 I think what she's asking is the bandit signs, the sandwich boards, the the the large wavy banners um that you see
1:26:12 those. So, none of those are allowed within the city of Clermont without having a special permit to have those outside of
1:26:19 your building signage permit that you would put up on the building. That's correct. I see.
1:26:26 Does that Does that include window cling signage? Is there a limit on that as far as for a fixed facility or like signage that's kind of a fixed to the window of the tenant businesses?
1:26:37 Yeah. Is there any any code viol? No, there's nothing in the code for restrict. There may be, but that's not one of the violations that were cited in this case.
1:26:44 Got you.
1:26:45 Uh the only reason why I'm asking is because a lot of times you see people, they just who have their own small
1:26:52 business, they buy these signs that they can just push in the ground. They'll put it on the side of the highway and it's not really the uh property owner that's
1:27:02 on the highway that's doing that. It's just a random person trying to advertise their business. That's why I want to be clear now that because I've seen it all the time where people they just go come
1:27:11 out of their truck and they put a sign in the parking lot and it's not really, you know, it's the only reason I'm asking that. Of course, and you're absolutely right.
1:27:19 Yeah, definitely. That's a problem in every municipality is, you know, people will come, you know, and you see junk cars all the time, stuff like that. Um, in this case, you know, with with these
1:27:27 signs here, you know, that tax business that put these signs out on the right ofway offsite, that is a tenant business that's within this plaza. as are the other signs that are shown.
1:27:37 Thank you. I just wanted to be clear on that.
1:27:40 So, they're not even allowed to have those inside of their property line either because you showed a picture of one on an island inside of there with one of those.
1:27:48 That's correct.
1:27:48 Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. One question for the city.
1:27:53 Um, in your recommendation uh on the for the notice of violations for both properties uh for section uh 117-8,
1:28:02 am I correct that um with respect to your request that the board find them in violation, you asking them not to find
1:28:10 them in violation of section 117-8 subsection 15? Was that the exception?
1:28:16 No, sir. That's not quite right. What Yeah. which is which specific from what the city is asking for with regards to that is that the the board recognized
1:28:25 that that for that particular subsection they are currently in compliance while the other subsections of 1178 and the uh
1:28:32 property maintenance code that were cited they are still in violation of right so uh the only exception they find them if they were to find them in
1:28:40 violations u for the reasons stated in the notice of violation it's everything except for subsection 15 is that correct Correct.
1:28:49 I don't but I would just because I'm It says the exceptions in subsection 15. So which are they currently in compliance with?
1:28:57 The portion that they are currently in compliance with are the off-site signage. They are not currently in violation of the off-site signage which is 15 or 22.
1:29:07 Let me go back here. I'm sorry. that is going to be on the uh excuse me that subsection 15 is going to be
1:29:15 the um utility pole one and that one has been removed. Okay.
1:29:22 So is it I misspoke about the code section of offsite. Please forgive me. So that that particular section that I'm saying they
1:29:29 are in compliance of deals with signs that are in the right of way and on utility poles. So that portion is in compliance.
1:29:37 Okay. So subsection 11- uh 117-8 subsection 15 they're currently in compliance. That is correct.
1:29:44 Okay, understood.
1:29:48 And just for clarification, this one again is being brought as two separate cases. So we would ask for two separate
1:29:55 orders. The two separate cases are based on the parcel. So but the violation exists across parcels. If you want to go
1:30:02 back to that go back. So, we're looking for one violation, which would be the sidewalks, and the other one would be the signage.
1:30:12 That's not correct. It's sidewalks and signage on both parcels.
1:30:16 So, parcel one is going to have it parcel three.
1:30:19 Yeah. So, if to answer your question or maybe to try to help you understand. So, um there are as it as it would appear
1:30:29 three parcels. however, um parcels that are listed or numbered as number two and three. You can see are
1:30:38 split by the parcel uh labeled number one.
1:30:43 Parcels two and three though, however, have the exact same property identification information, parcel
1:30:50 number, alternate key, address, um legal description. Um, so although it is kind
1:30:58 of strange that number one would split two and three, but two and three it's a package deal.
1:31:04 So what you're saying is that all three parcels is owned by the same party. That's correct. Okay. Very good.
1:31:11 And so the the city's looking for and the respondents here, so you need to hear from the respondent before making a
1:31:17 motion. But case number 25-0000203 is with respect to the the parcel that
1:31:25 has an address of 16526 state road 50 whereas case number 26-000083
1:31:33 has an address of 1042 highway 50. So same violations on both cases
1:31:40 but they it's why they need separate orders. That is correct.
1:31:46 But after you hear from the respondent, is there someone here to represent this case?
1:32:03 Please state your name and address. Shauna Martinez.
1:32:07 I'm the property manager with B3 Capital Group. And your address? Property address? Yes. 108 South uh East Highway 15.
1:32:17 Okay. Um Okay. So, this is just just put
1:32:24 something together to try to make more sense of it. Um, I was notified by Joshua of the vegetate vegetation
1:32:34 over the sidewalk on South Grand Highway and the sidewalk um uneven it being
1:32:41 uneven and broken. So, when I received that from him, I did go out, I sent a crew out to clear the hesitation out at
1:32:50 that time. It was completely clear. Um, and then he also provided a photo with the email that he in the violation with
1:32:59 the measurements and and I kind of outline on that photo the area of concern in the violation. So it was very
1:33:08 clear there was it was maybe three or four panels that was uneven due to the roots and needed to be either grinded
1:33:16 down or replaced. Um I complied. We cleared everything out.
1:33:22 We actually replaced the whole section of the sidewalk that he requested and everything was it was my understanding everything was clear.
1:33:31 And then um I have an email dates on here. Sorry.
1:33:36 I received another email from Joshua asking uh not asking requesting that additional sidewalk be replaced.
1:33:47 Um, so at that time I did request like you did previously a picture or measurements or something showing the
1:33:57 new area of concern. Um, we had a crew out there, you know, we spent a few thousand dollars on getting everything up to compliance. If I would have known
1:34:05 there was additional area that wasn't concern, I would have had it repaired at that time. Um so after that notification
1:34:12 from him, I was advised to re-evaluate the property line and rideway. Um we do
1:34:21 have a Duke easement on that area of the sidewalk and that whole side of side of the property. Um but it was my
1:34:28 understanding to I was told to basically investigate more of the rightway and if it fell on to the ownership's
1:34:36 responsibility to repair. Um, when I requested that some of the emails, email chain on here. When I requested the
1:34:45 documentation, um, I never received it. So,
1:34:52 so I know I understand I understand the city side of it. I have I pulled the survey from when we purchased the
1:34:59 building and the valuation that I was told is that it was right away. our
1:35:07 property management right away. So I requested kind of something just verifying who does it fall on. That was
1:35:14 the first request. And then again the second request was can you please clarify the area of concern if it falls on us. We've already showed good faith.
1:35:24 We've already completely replaced part of the sidewalk. We're happy to do it again. I just need that clarified. And
1:35:31 it was never clarified. And I was just told a hearing has been set.
1:35:38 Now, you're the management of the of the uh property. Yes.
1:35:43 Uh did you have anyone go back and inspect the the length of your property where the sidewalk is to see all the So,
1:35:52 you noticed that there was uh overgrowth that need to be cleared in order to walk there, which would reveal cracks and broken parts of the sidewalk, right?
1:36:03 Correct.
1:36:03 So you could see all of that was completely overgrown. Um I was not aware we had to maintain again right away and ease I was was a fault of my of
1:36:13 myself not knowing we needed to maintain that. So when it was brought to our to my attention I mean within a week I had someone out completely cleared it. Some
1:36:21 of the photos that I have in that in the in the papers um shows that it was cleared. I'm not sure how the photos
1:36:29 that Joshua had up there how far back that was that that's where our property line is. Um I was not aware of the photo
1:36:39 he's and I was just there so I wasn't aware of that area. Um none of the stuff that was there he that photo must have
1:36:47 been very beginning of this maybe beginning of April.
1:36:54 Um, so yeah, I don't I understand.
1:37:07 Like I said, we're more than willing and happy to repair anything that falls under our responsibility. I just wanted
1:37:15 some clarification on that. Uh that's the survey that shows where the property line I I do know that property appraisals survey is not the same. It
1:37:24 doesn't seem like the property line is ex matching up with the surveyor. Um I did call the surveyor that prepared this
1:37:32 and uh he was on vacation of course for two weeks and can could not get out there in time.
1:37:40 Well, I for one would sure be able to love love to read those what this says, but my eyes are just too old. had staff
1:37:47 go ahead and put it up on the screen there. Okay. For us.
1:37:50 Um, am I able to cross-examine the witness? I'm sorry.
1:37:58 Yeah. No, I'm When when she's done. Okay. Are you Are you finished? Yeah.
1:38:03 And before you begin, so the respondent provided a packet um to the board and it'll be included in the evidence in this case. Um, so they all have it now.
1:38:13 And that again that was just to kind of oversight on what the communication between myself and the officer has been.
1:38:21 Oh um I don't think we've been provided the packet. I have another one. Oh yes. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah.
1:38:29 Can I ask you where you think or where your position is on the property line?
1:38:33 Is it I don't know whether it's defined on here.
1:38:37 I think staff if you could pull that down. What we're really looking at is probably the top left corner right now because I do believe that's going to mark our point of beginning for the
1:38:46 legal description because you can't see it right now because it's going to be on the like the on old highway 50.
1:38:54 Yeah. So, it's going to be upper top left corner, right?
1:38:57 You want to see it's going to show no up the top left. See that mark right there? Highway.
1:39:04 That's what we're trying to get a better zoom in figure out what what we've got going on.
1:39:10 The retention phone versus lot. It's to the left.
1:39:12 Yeah. I was just hoping we'd be able to see like point of beginning noted. Sorry.
1:39:15 I know it's So to manage this property, Shauna, right?
1:39:23 Yes.
1:39:23 Yeah. To manage this property, do you have to be a CAM? Do you have a CAM license?
1:39:27 No, I'm a real estate agent, but you don't need In commercial in commercial real estate, you do not need a CAM license. It's only for and you only need a CAM if you're
1:39:35 managing HOAs and POAS to man to manage commercial or residential. I don't want to do HOA.
1:39:40 No, you don't. You don't want I have a question for the city. Um, so
1:39:47 when you spoke with Lake County, do we do we have anything that shows what the the the easement is from off off the
1:39:57 street? like where do they where does that sidewalk fall footwise within their easement or outside of cuz I can't that's what I would like to see here
1:40:06 what this document is to be honest yeah this is a this is a this is from the respondent I don't know what this is if we want to pull back up
1:40:13 our um from the property appraisal um yes so as the city we reviewed the legal description of the property the meats
1:40:21 and bounds um fall outside of the sidewalk um We confirmed with public works that the city does not
1:40:30 own or maintain the sidewalk. We also confirmed with Lake County that the uh Lake County does not own or maintain the
1:40:37 sidewalk. The sidewalk is on private property. Um well within the legal description of the uh two parcels.
1:40:46 Thank you. Okay.
1:40:48 And if I could add to that, um if you look at the email, there's I don't know what page it's on. the communication
1:40:55 email between myself and Joshua. I did request that. I was told that uh you
1:41:02 guys were consulting with your attorney on just to verify that where that right away was and I never received anything
1:41:09 back and that's all I really needed was something to state just just show me that I'm incorrect on this and we'll have it repaired.
1:41:22 I have a question for the staff.
1:41:25 Um, at this moment, basically what we're looking for is to have this corrected. Yes. And set it set a time.
1:41:34 Yes. And date for this to be corrected. Yes.
1:41:37 That's pretty much where we're at right now. Just to have this corrected.
1:41:41 I just need something for ownership showing exactly what you if you received anything on from the attorney showing it falls on the part.
1:41:49 Yeah. So the and correct me if I'm wrong, but what the respondent is saying is she believes the survey that she has
1:41:56 provided or the document that looks like a survey that she's provided and checked to see if it was signed and sealed and I know it's a copy. So I'm not telling you
1:42:05 what credibility to give it, but her suggestion is or her argument is that the sidewalk is not on their property,
1:42:14 which is an issue that she's risen. You all can decide whether or not they need time to look at it or not based on what
1:42:22 you've heard. City attorney can make argument just like I could make argument or respondents attorney could make argument but they can't testify.
1:42:31 So would this be a continuence?
1:42:34 Certainly if the survey showed that the that the sidewalk was in the rideway and not on private property, you would have a legal
1:42:42 issue with code enforcement of the of the sidewalk. If it shows the opposite, you have no issue. You just have to determine whether or not you have
1:42:51 competent substantial evidence before you right now to make that determination. And I can't tell you what the answer is.
1:43:00 Uh miss how long will your survey uh person be away? When will he be back?
1:43:07 Um he said this week. Sometime this week.
1:43:12 And he's the one that did the survey originally upon which you purchased the property or relied on.
1:43:17 No, he was part of development and I also tried to research if we had any type of development agreement.
1:43:24 Sometimes that does show whose responsibility falls under and we didn't have that for for the city. Would this be
1:43:33 sufficient information for the survey
1:43:38 company that did the I guess the the sub development would that be sufficient to
1:43:47 clarify because this GIS information I'm not sure is the equivalent of a of an actual survey document.
1:43:56 Those are lines superimposed on a map. Yeah.
1:43:59 Yeah. Um we've Yes. So, um it's my understanding that um our position is
1:44:06 based on the actual legal description. I do have a copy of the actual legal description if you would like to see it.
1:44:13 Did you have a surveyor go out and do the meats and bounds of the legal description? It's just the legal description on the legal description website. Right.
1:44:20 So, you have no point of beginning to know where that is. So, you have inconclusive. Now, I have I have one question.
1:44:28 Um, City of Clermont has on file in their records a survey of all properties. Is that correct or incorrect?
1:44:41 Can you repeat the question?
1:44:44 The answer is yes. Because when you submit a building permit, you have to submit for new construction, you have to submit a survey. So, they should have it where it is, how it's filed.
1:44:55 Yes, that's where I'm getting to. The city of Clermont should have a survey of this property and it would behoove us
1:45:02 if we could see that survey so we can determine to answer this young lady's question whether or not it's the
1:45:10 responsibility of the city or the responsibility of the property owner without that survey based on what she
1:45:18 showed us. It's for me. I can't speak for anybody else. But it's very difficult for me to see or understand because it doesn't look like any survey
1:45:26 I've ever seen because every survey I've seen and purchasing properties, it's very clear, defined, and as our attorney says, it
1:45:34 does have a seal on it, which makes it official. No, I said I couldn't tell.
1:45:40 There was You can't I know. I said I can't tell either.
1:45:43 But there's on every survey, it has to have seal. It has to be registered just based on what I've seen here.
1:45:54 Uh that doesn't look like any survey I have ever seen. I have additional certified surveys. Well, that's what I would like to see.
1:46:02 Yeah.
1:46:02 I do have a question though that would that would help for for me as far as who's So, is this a is this a city maintained
1:46:10 road and easement or this is this is Lake County?
1:46:15 It's nei neither for the sidewalk. So, is there a sidewalk on road?
1:46:19 Oh, the road. The county maintains the road.
1:46:21 So, and the opposite side, who maintains? Is there a sidewalk on the opposite side of Grand Highway that's maintained by anyone?
1:46:29 The county.
1:46:30 It's the county. So, if this were if this were to fall in someone, it would either fall on the county's
1:46:37 responsibility or the the property owner's responsibility. Correct. Is what I'm trying to get at.
1:46:43 though. So, this wouldn't if it were if it were maintained by someone other than the property owner, it would be a Lake County issue. Correct.
1:46:55 Well, to answer your question, um for right ofway maintenance in that area, it is under Lake County. Uh in this case,
1:47:02 um Lake County's public works staff, specifically Kim Rodrik, um is advising that that sidewalk is not maintained by
1:47:10 them and has never been maintained by them. I was able to find the initial construction plans from 1992. This is what the city has on file
1:47:19 um as far as a survey. I'm going to see if I can't zoom in.
1:47:27 Oh, much better.
1:47:38 Is the display recorded?
1:47:42 Uh um yes at this time I believe it is okay.
1:47:49 So I think we're really just looking at that bottom left corner where we want to get to right bear with me board. I think you need to
1:47:58 use the plus key that you need a you need a good surve.
1:48:17 So miss your survey is based upon what?
1:48:22 In other words, you had a survey done of property that was purchased.
1:48:26 Um the survey that the copy that I provided it was at time of development.
1:48:34 So it it would incorporate the ground that we're speaking of right now.
1:48:39 Yeah. And I have multiple surveyor surveys, but it would clarify that you own or don't own.
1:48:45 Well, to be honest with you, it's not that clear.
1:48:49 It's it's the the way we view it, the way I've had people view it, development, my development team, it's showing that it does not fall under our
1:48:58 our responsibility. Um, however, what they have on the property appraisal, if you follow the property line, it does
1:49:05 lean towards it's our property. So, I just needed cl what I requested is just clarification on that. Um, and I
1:49:13 actually made the again I made the first repair to the sidewalk which was $3,000.
1:49:19 Um, just out of good faith because we were violated for it. And I did ask him I did ask him. I said, "Are you sure
1:49:27 this falls under our property?" And he says, "Yes, I double checked." Okay.
1:49:31 And it does. So I made the repair. Um, the second repair request
1:49:39 was brought to my attention. I need and we really need to verify this is falling out.
1:49:43 Yeah. I I think on this situation here, what's unique is because this has such a large setback on on Grand Highway there
1:49:50 that if it could be confusing on whose area really that is.
1:49:58 We also have an Duke ement on that whole lot area. During this time, I included a
1:50:05 photo of that. They were were replacing the electrical pulses. So there was no way any more could have been done in the
1:50:13 last 30 days with their trucks and their poles and everything.
1:50:18 Is is that is that Duke easement your your easement for the benefit your your own property with the easement to benefit Duke?
1:50:26 Yes.
1:50:27 And that falls into the sidewalk area or just inside of it?
1:50:30 So it sounds like then that's your sidewalk if it's your area. Okay. See if that clear.
1:50:37 The poles are on the inside of the sidewalk. 20 foot easement center line.
1:50:44 Maybe it's usually what they 15 to 20 feet.
1:50:47 So that's a tough one.
1:51:00 I have one I have one other question. Yes.
1:51:02 Um as a management company.
1:51:10 Can you tell me that the the owners as of now are they the original owners or they purchased?
1:51:17 No, they um V3 is a management and ownership uh we actually own the property and sold it to R&M Retail.
1:51:25 Make sure we continue to manage it. Okay. With the new ownership. Did you? Now, with that said, um
1:51:33 were you the company that um put in the permit to uh build this plaza and build all the structures? No. That's what I'm
1:51:41 just trying to find out because at the date of construction, all that has to be put into the town and then that would show me and tell me who put the sidewalk
1:51:50 down, right? Yeah. We didn't build this this particular property and again sometimes the development agreement covers that and we I wasn't able to locate one of those.
1:51:59 Okay. Thank you.
1:52:02 Um I have put up the survey that the city has on file. Um I hope that this
1:52:11 helps. So if so this right here if you see this is the sidewalk.
1:52:18 And then if you zoom out, these are the partials, I believe. And this is the
1:52:24 line. If that helps, I can zoom in as needed.
1:52:34 Could you go up to the corner? Yes.
1:52:38 Yeah, that looks like it's on the property.
1:52:42 Because you can see the dark blue line, which is your property line.
1:52:47 So that is on your property and then that's what I was looking for.
1:52:57 Just slowly run it all the way. Yes.
1:53:13 Continue down.
1:53:21 And there's the corner corner of the lot. It's within It's within your property.
1:53:28 Okay. Yeah, that that's I just need to clear right there. Yeah. Yeah.
1:53:36 Do you still need this?
1:53:37 Um I'll put it back. Sorry about that.
1:53:39 We're just gonna get a copy printed so that you can all see it in full. Is that okay? Okay. Yeah, if I could do that.
1:53:47 Okay.
1:53:52 And what is what what are we requesting again?
1:53:55 This is the survey that the city has on No, what are we requesting again as far as both cases?
1:54:01 Yes. So, the two um proposed violations um it's the maintaining the sidewalk and the um removal of the prohibited signs.
1:54:14 Okay. Yeah, I'll defer to Josh on that.
1:54:23 Uh what Mr. Cortez, what was the compliance date you asked for?
1:54:27 I just wanted to state briefly um code enforcement manager Eevee Wallace is going to print out that document so that we can hand that to each member of the
1:54:34 board. And then the question was what was the compliance date? I think June 17th, correct? June 17th.
1:54:43 I think that's what I wrote down.
1:54:44 The compliance date in this case is going to be 42926.
1:54:50 I know your recommendation for when they come into compliance. Uh June 17, 2026. My apologies.
1:54:57 Yeah.
1:55:03 Is that doable for you to have this kind of work done within that time frame? Yes. Okay. Yeah.
1:55:11 Oh, yeah. I I got I have the same company that already made the repair there. You know, he's aware of the situation. I
1:55:20 said I I wanted to resolve this prior to coming to coming to the hearing. I didn't want to have to do this.
1:55:25 Obviously had to bring somebody with me due to the time frame. Um I we're if it falls on us, it falls on us. We take
1:55:32 full responsibility for it. So yes, June 17th is is doable. Okay.
1:55:42 Okay. Then u we need to make a motion on two separate items here.
1:55:52 I would just ask to be printed.
1:56:00 Thank you. I'm sorry. Are we discussing signs? Yes. I'm I'm coming to signs now.
1:56:08 Um I'm assuming in your leases you have rules and regulations that deal with signage and and whatnot. Um so um
1:56:18 assuming then you're going to probably work on enforcing that uh going forward. Yes.
1:56:22 Appreciate it. Um, one of the banner signs is actually Dunkin Donuts.
1:56:27 They continue to put a sign on our property. They're a different partial.
1:56:30 We don't own the Dunkin Donuts lot, but they put their sign on our property. Yeah.
1:56:34 So, I uh three times I've sent a vendor out to pick up every sign, every flag,
1:56:42 and get rid of it. I continuously sent emails to my tenants, do not put signs outside. They're advertising their
1:56:49 business. Some of them are small small companies in their advertising business.
1:56:54 They don't listen to me even though I throw their signs out. They do it again.
1:56:58 This is an ongoing thing in retail shops.
1:57:00 Yeah. My my my condolences. I I personally in my personal life manage large commercial real estate and it is a
1:57:08 constant issue of bandit signs that end up everywhere. So yes, understandable.
1:57:23 Miss Wallace may take a moment to print out the the survey since she has to shrink it for the for the printer to print out. So, it may take her a moment.
1:57:33 Thank you.
1:57:47 I guess maybe we can take a five minute recess in case someone likes to use the uh laboratory or something.
1:57:54 We can if you'd like with the instruction that obviously you can't discuss the case amongst yourselves or any other matter that may come before the board while we're in recess and uh
1:58:02 you can't talk to staff and you can't talk to the respondent. So be it.
1:58:10 All right.
1:58:11 Time is 7:45. You wish 7:50 5 minute recess. Okay.
1:58:41 Heat. Hey, Heat.
2:00:24 Heat. Heat.
2:02:34 I'm just decides, well, you had enough sleep. I said it's still dark out.
2:04:15 Madam Chair, did you say we'd be off the record until 7:50? Yes, sir.
2:04:19 If you want to go back on the record, I can provide some advice of how we can continue while we're waiting on the copy. Yes, sir.
2:04:28 We're back on the record.
2:04:31 All right. It's 7:52 and Madam Chair, they're still waiting on the copies. You know, it's a large survey. I think it was from the 90s, so it takes a moment.
2:04:39 If the board would like to continue with its other business so that we don't delay other folks that are here, what you could do is take a motion to table
2:04:47 temporarily table this case and then move on to the next case. While we're waiting on the copy, thank you, sir.
2:04:54 Um, I would like to make a motion to uh table this case and move forward with the other cases.
2:05:05 I second.
2:05:17 Never mind.
2:05:18 I had saved by the bell. That's okay. I don't need it.
2:05:26 You do. Thank you.
2:05:34 There you go. Xerox machine.
2:05:50 And do we have a copy for the respondent? Sorry.
2:06:01 Oh, now I see it. Yep.
2:06:11 All right. So, we're back on the record number.
2:06:24 Yeah, that's good. That's good. Yeah.
2:06:31 Um, you each have been provided the survey on file from, um, the city of Clermont. Um, if you can see on the
2:06:40 screen, we also have it blown up. Um, this this right here is the sidewalk.
2:06:50 This right here is the property line.
2:06:53 And upon reviewing the respondents um survey, I don't although I it's
2:07:01 unverified um whether they match the one that the city of Clermont
2:07:07 has, I don't think that we are in disagreement that the property owner
2:07:16 owns it. If I'm reading correctly, on page on the third to last page of the
2:07:23 respondents um packet, it just says that um the ingress and egress is the two roads, Highway 50 East and South Grand Highway.
2:07:36 Um those are the less and accept parcels. In other words, that is what um
2:07:42 the Lake County um maintains. Um I believe it just says that the survey does not identify any sidewalk feature
2:07:51 within these parcels, meaning that it doesn't identify that the sidewalk is
2:07:58 exempt from their maintenance. So I think that we are on the same page um as far as the the property.
2:08:06 Yeah, I just needed to clar clarification. Okay.
2:08:09 Okay, I apologize for that not being clear.
2:08:27 And the town recommendation is go back to the staff recommendation is to find the
2:08:36 respondent was in violation of section 117-8 subsection 15 and to find the respondent
2:08:43 is in violation of all other sections stated. additionally to assess a fine of $250 for each case individually per day for
2:08:52 every day that the property remains in violation after June 17th, 2026.
2:08:58 So, so for purposes of a motion, they would like a motion with respect to each case and it's number five in your
2:09:05 motions list um with respect to one uh 117-8 subsection 15 and the the the
2:09:15 portion of the recommended motion number five uh the that I move to find the respondant is in violation of the city of Clermont's code of ordinances as
2:09:24 listed in the notice of violation filed in this matter. you could say with the exception of uh 117-8 subsection 15.
2:09:39 Okay. Do I have a motion?
2:09:59 I'll make a motion based on the testimony and evidence presented in case 25-0000203.
2:10:13 I move to find that the respondent as listed in the notice of violation or sorry I move that respondent
2:10:21 is in violation of the city of Clermont's code of ordinances as listed in the notice violation filed in this
2:10:27 matter which is 117-8 uh with with the exception of 117-8
2:10:35 subsection 15 with the exception of 117-8 subsection 15 I move to order that the respondent
2:10:43 correct the violation on or before June 17th.
2:10:49 In order um in order correct the violation, the
2:10:56 respondent shall take the remedial action as set forth in a notice violation. If the respondent does not comply with this order, a fine of $250
2:11:06 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues past June 17th, 2026. The respondent is further ordered
2:11:14 to contact code enforcement office for compliance and to arrange an inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order.
2:11:23 Do I have a second? Second. All in favor?
2:11:28 I I I. And we have to do the same for the second one. Correct. Yes, sir.
2:11:35 Based on the testimony and evidence presented in case CB26-000083.
2:11:46 I move to find that the respondent is in violation of the city of Clermont's code of ordin ordinances with the exception of subsection 117-8.
2:11:56 Subsection 15. Subsection 15.
2:12:00 I move to order that the respondent correct the violation on or before June 17th.
2:12:06 In order to correct the violation, the respondent shall take the remedial action as set forth in the notice of violation.
2:12:14 If the respondent does not comply with this order, a fine of $250 per day will be imposed for each day that the violation continue past June 17, 2026.
2:12:24 The respondent is further ordered to contact code enforcement office for compliance and arrange an inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order.
2:12:34 Do I have a second? I second. All in favor?
2:12:37 I do have a request.
2:12:41 Can I can you please provide the areas that need to be repaired?
2:12:48 You would have to speak to the uh code enforcement will take care of you. I requested it.
2:12:54 You still have to speak to them because we don't do that. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you.
2:13:01 Thank you very much.
2:13:43 Okay, we're going to move to item six. This is case number 26-000065.
2:13:54 The respondent in this matter is John P. and D. Adams Family LP.
2:14:01 The property address is 1600 Hancock Road.
2:14:06 The city code sections cited in this matter are sections 117-8 subsections 115 19 and 22.
2:14:20 You've seen these uh in the last cases um with now the addition of subsection 19 which states off-site signs except
2:14:29 for those expressly permitted in section 11716.
2:14:36 This is an overhead view of uh the property, a screenshot from Lake County Property Appraiser showing the property's location.
2:14:47 Notice the violation in this matter was sent March 18th, 2026 and the compliance date was April 2nd, 2026.
2:14:58 The notice of violation was delivered on April 6th. Notice of hearing was sent April 14th and the notice of hearing was
2:15:07 posted on May 4th. The compliance status as of today's hearing is the property is in compliance.
2:15:14 This is a copy of the notice of violation that was sent to the respondent showing delivered on April 6th.
2:15:24 This is the notice to appear in the affidavit of posting dated May 4th, 2026.
2:15:36 Um these are a few emails um from myself and from the property manager of the uh property, the respondent's property.
2:15:45 Um this is just essentially him stating that he was a good contact um and that he was uh notified via email as well.
2:15:59 Looks like a few of you are still reading, so I will wait to move on.
2:16:16 Okay, I'm going to move on.
2:16:21 This is a photograph taken on 31826 showing a banner sign draped over one of the businesses.
2:16:32 Again, another photo taken on 318 2026 of a banner sign uh in the city's right ofway.
2:16:43 A photograph taken on 47 2026 showing a sandwich board sign.
2:16:55 Photo taken on 413 2026.
2:17:00 This is the notice of violation and notice of hearing that were posted on the property dated May 4th, 2026.
2:17:13 Photo today showing the property is in compliance.
2:17:17 Staff recommendation to the code enforcement board is to find the respondent was in violation of the section stated. I have nothing further.
2:17:24 if you have any questions for me.
2:17:28 Was that banner gone across the door as well? I didn't see that in the pictures. It is. Okay. Thank you.
2:17:35 So, staff's looking for an adjudication only. That's correct.
2:17:41 Okay. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this case? Okay.
2:17:52 I believe we're looking for a motion just to uh show that there was a violation.
2:17:57 Yep. It would be a motion to find the respondent was in violation um uh as listed in the notice of violation and has since come into compliance.
2:18:07 Like to go ahead and make a motion on case 26-000065.
2:18:14 I move the I move that the respondent was in violation and their property is currently in violation per or currently
2:18:22 not currently in violation per the notices from city staff.
2:18:30 Do I have a second? Second. All in favor?
2:18:33 I I motion pass.
2:18:46 Okay, we're going to move on to item seven, case number 25-0000149.
2:18:55 The respondent, the property owner is POP Florida Properties LLC and the property address
2:19:04 is uh 16530 State Road 50. The city code sections cited in this matter were
2:19:12 sections 3023 of the international property maintenance code sidewalks and driveways 3081 of the international property
2:19:19 maintenance code accumulation of rubbish or garbage and section 1178 prohibited signs exceptions 22 subsection 22.
2:19:34 You've seen these sections in previous cases. uh now with uh including uh 3081 accumulation of rubbish or garbage which
2:19:42 states exterior property and premises and the interior of every structure shall be free from any accumulation of rubbish or garbage.
2:19:52 This is a screenshot from GIS showing the property's location.
2:20:00 Case summary. This was a citizen complaint. Uh notice of violation. in this matter was sent January 6th, 2026.
2:20:07 Notice of violation was posted January 7th. Notice of violation compliance date was February 1st, 2026. Notice of violation was delivered January 12th.
2:20:17 Notice of hearing was sent April 15th, 2026. And the notice of hearing was delivered on April 20th, 2026.
2:20:26 The status of the property uh as of today's hearing that they are non-compliant.
2:20:32 This is the notice of violation showing that it was both delivered and posted on the property.
2:20:45 Notice to appear showing that it was delivered.
2:20:53 This was a photograph taken November 18th of 2025 showing rubbish accumulation of garbage on the property.
2:21:02 Photo taken January 6, 2026, showing signage on the property. Prohibited signage.
2:21:09 Another photo taken January 6 showing prohibited signage.
2:21:15 This is a photo that shows a uh like a trough drain or a channel drain that a
2:21:23 portion of the grate is missing. Um, and so as motorists drive over top of this, uh, it's it's a very unpleasant
2:21:30 experience to say the least. Um, and so this this channel drain is not being maintained. It's not functioning as intended.
2:21:40 Photo taken February 5th, 2026 showing accumulation of rubbish and garbage on the property.
2:21:48 Again, February 5th, accumulation of rubbish and garbage.
2:21:53 A photo taken on 41426 showing prohibited signage. Prohibited signage.
2:22:02 Accumulation of rubbish and garbage.
2:22:05 A photo taken today showing prohibited signage. More signage.
2:22:12 The channel drain has not been repaired.
2:22:16 Some minor accumulation in the rear on the sides near the fire hydrant.
2:22:22 The staff recommendation in this case is to find the respondent in violation of section stated to assess a fine of $250 per day for every day the property
2:22:29 remains in violation after June 17th, 2026. I have nothing further. If you have any questions for me,
2:22:40 have they been in contact with you at all?
2:22:42 Uh myself and the code enforcement manager, Eevee Wallace, spoke um briefly with a gentleman who at that time advised to be their attorney. I don't
2:22:51 know if that gentleman is still representing the respondent. Um, but communication before and after that one instance. No, no, nothing.
2:22:59 Thank you.
2:23:03 Is there anyone here to represent this case?
2:23:11 I'll make a motion, please. Based on the testimony and evidence presented in case CB25-0000149,
2:23:22 I move to find that the respondent is in violation of the city of Clermont's code of ordinances as listed in the notice of violation filed in this
2:23:30 matter. I move to order that the respondent correct the violation on or before June 17th.
2:23:37 In order to correct the violation, respondent shall take the remedial action as set forth in the notice of violation. If the respondent does not
2:23:44 comply with this order, a fine of $250 will be imposed for each day. The violation continues past June 17, 2026.
2:23:53 The respondent is further ordered to contact code enforcement office for compliance and to arrange an inspection of the property to verify compliance with the order.
2:24:03 Second.
2:24:04 All in favor? I I motion passed.
2:24:34 I thought we did the All
2:24:55 right. Evening again. This is the item 10. This will be the last uh last case heard as item nine was pulled. Not sure.
2:25:03 I believe we said that, but just a reminder. So, this is item 10. Case 25-000090.
2:25:13 This is 501 Pit Street, Syocus Properties LLC.
2:25:18 This is for U violations of 1853 which is our nuisance code for prohibited items, conditions, actions,
2:25:25 accumulation of materials 1854 with creation and maintenance of nuisance by the owner and for the international property maintenance code 302.4 for weeds.
2:25:40 This is the location of the property from Lake County Property Appraiser.
2:25:48 Uh complaint was received September 9th, 2025. Uh the notice of violation was sent out on September 25th, 2025. A
2:25:57 notice of hearing sent out December of 25.
2:26:01 The notice of violation and the hearing notice were resent via certified mail January of 26. All certified mail
2:26:09 notices were returned. None of them were signed for. Therefore, we didn't have due process. Um, this went on to
2:26:17 the January hearing. It was going to be scheduled for the January hearing. It was not. I recited them uh with a brand new notice violation, giving them giving
2:26:26 them more time to correct. uh that was posted on April 15, 2026 and a new notice of hearing was posted May 4th,
2:26:34 2026. As of today, the property is still non-compliant. I had zero contact from the owner. I did speak with the tenant
2:26:42 back in December of 25. Um he provided a phone number. The phone number did not work. Did not go through. Um
2:26:52 this is the notice of violation. And the one on the left was 101025. That was the first one that I cited them with. That was the uh
2:27:00 the weeds and uh basically just weeds, tall grass.
2:27:06 And the notice to appear, the notice to appear was resent to the registered agent, which was the registered agent is
2:27:13 also the owner. They are their own registered agent for this LLC.
2:27:19 This is the new notice of violation that was dated uh 4:15 2026,
2:27:27 the affidavit of posting, the new notice to appear and the affidavit of posting.
2:27:43 So this is the property. This was uh back in September of 25. um showing the tall grass as well as within that grass
2:27:51 there is some debris from a tree that fell during the um October 10th, 2024 hurricane that we had.
2:28:03 This is the height of the grass. Kind of hard to see that yard stick in there, but if you see on
2:28:10 this little area right here, uh that marker that is on the yard stick, that's 18 inches. As you can see, this is well over well over that 18 inch mark.
2:28:21 Uh this is a door hanger I left on their door explaining the violation and a print out of the property lines showing that that is definitely their property.
2:28:33 This was September 24th. Some of it had been cleaned up at that point.
2:28:39 December 9th, you can see a lot more of the debris. And to the rear, if you can look the screen, I'll right back here.
2:28:48 This tree is fallen and actually fell onto the neighboring properties fence.
2:28:54 This tree is still on site, as well as all the debris in this uh this location here, December 9th, 2025.
2:29:05 That is uh the neighbor's fence that this tree fell on.
2:29:15 It's a picture of the property posted.
2:29:24 It's kind of hard to see, but this picture is supposed to show this tree underneath this vegetation. The tree has been down there so long the vegetation
2:29:31 has grown up all around it. But this tree is the one that fell on on the uh during the hurricane and onto the neighboring property's fence.
2:29:44 May 4th, the notice to appear was uh posted.
2:29:52 More pictures of the violation.
2:30:01 Tried to zoom in on that picture, so it was a little distorted. And this is taken today at 11:01.
2:30:12 again today at 11:01. This was also today.
2:30:23 So, the tree fell during the uh October 10th, 2024 hurricane. The city allowed time for the recovery and repairs. A
2:30:30 formal complaint was received in September 25 December. Spoke with the tenant and advised them of the issue.
2:30:37 owner's phone number provided, but it was not accepting calls. No contact from the owner at this time. All certified mail sent to the house and to the
2:30:44 registered agent have been returned to the owner's property and the um and the registered agent's property. All mail
2:30:52 sent there has been returned. The area around the tree and the debris the debris has been mowed, but uh the tree and the debris have not been moved at all.
2:31:03 Staff recommendation is to find the respondent in violation of the section stated and to assess a fine of 150 per day for every day the property remains in violation after July 17th, 2026.
2:31:14 That's providing them with 60 days. That's all I have. Any questions for me? I have one question. Yes.
2:31:21 Um do you the notice is in violation? Was that sent to the property or was there a separate address for the owner that was sent to?
2:31:31 So, I will go back to them. They were sent to the property owner and then to the registered agent for the property owner, which is also the same as the
2:31:39 property owner's address. Was not sent to this property itself. This is a rental property. Okay. Thank you.
2:31:44 And the certified mail, I assume, was returned as received. No. To you is not received.
2:31:49 It was not re Oh, it was just returned to me.
2:31:52 Okay. So, no one ever no one ever signed for anything.
2:31:55 Correct. Yeah, that's why the property wound up being posted.
2:31:59 Does the address for the respondents address or does that address look like a residential address that you would be sending it to?
2:32:06 It is a residential address. Okay.
2:32:13 I have to ask, is there anyone here to respond to this case? No.
2:32:22 Okay. May I get a motion, please? Sure.
2:32:27 Like to make a motion uh based on the testimony and evidence provided in case 2500 000090.
2:32:37 Uh I move to find the respondent is in violation of the city of Clermont's code of ordinance as listed in the notice of violation violation filed in
2:32:45 this matter. Uh I move to order that the respondent correct the violation on or before July 17th, 2026. In order to
2:32:53 correct this violation, the respondent shall take remedial action as set forth in the notice of violation. If the respondent does not comply with this
2:33:01 order, a fine of $150 a day will be imposed for a fine of $150
2:33:10 uh will be imposed for each day the violation continues past July 17th, 2026.
2:33:17 The respondent is further ordered to contact code enforcement office for compliance and to arrange an inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order.
2:33:28 A second. All in favor?
2:33:30 I I I. Motion pass.
2:33:35 Now I also have to ask is does anyone wants to come up and speak for the public comment period?
2:33:46 Correct.
2:33:48 That would be a no. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Nope.
2:33:55 We've got a couple other items have been used. Don't worry, I'm going to be very brief with mine. Um it is in April or
2:34:03 May of every year, you all have to annually nominate uh someone for chair and then for vice chair. Um it it takes
2:34:11 place either in April or May depending on your schedule since you meet um every other month. Uh so it's not a horrifically uh uh burdensome process.
2:34:21 You don't have to have a motion in a second. We just accept nominations for anyone for chair. Once all the nominations are in, I just ask you to
2:34:29 raise I'll go in order of the nominations. Ask you to raise your hand for that person. Whoever has majority uh hands up ultimately wins. Um, but it's
2:34:38 totally up to you all who you wish to nominate for chair.
2:34:41 I'd like to go ahead and nominate Miss Camps uh for another uh year as chair. I second.
2:34:49 Not necessary to second. Any any other nominations? You can return the favor, too. It's always allowed, but any other nominations.
2:34:58 Okay, then just by show hands, all those in favor of the nomination. All right. Congratulations. Any any against? Nope. All right. Congratulations, chair.
2:35:07 Uh, now you need to select a vice chair.
2:35:11 I would like to nominate Mr. Evan as vice chair. Has he done a great job so far?
2:35:20 Any other nominations?
2:35:23 All right. And for sake of formality, all of you raise your hands in favor of vice chair. Okay. Unanimous. We have a vice chair.
2:35:31 Now, did staff have anything else for them before I talk about this 110 pages? No, wait. No, no umbrella this year.
2:35:39 No umbrella. Oh, come on. Oh, D. Not even a cupcake. Budget cuts. Budget cuts.
2:35:51 All right. Well, I'm going to start by saying that I heard that some of us were up at 4:30 and then 5:30. And so, I'm going to be brief. You have a 110 page
2:35:58 packet in front of you. So, you have homework. I'm going to tell you the things you need to do between now and July 1st. Um, for those of you that have
2:36:06 just joined the board, you have 30 days after you've joined the board to fill out form one for the Commission on Ethics. You can do it by going, you just
2:36:15 Google Florida Commission on Ethics Form One. It shows up and you fill it out. It is, you might think it's arduous, but it
2:36:22 is not form six. It is much easier. Um, so each year, every member is required to do it by July 1st. They give you a
2:36:30 grace period until September. Um, so if you're late, it's okay. But you can actually find a copy of the form. You
2:36:37 fill it out online. Now, that's different than in years past, but form one is on page 16 of your packet for page numbers.
2:36:48 You'll want to look in the upper right hand corner. They're big and bold. So, I include what you have to put in form
2:36:54 one. I include the instructions. So, you have to fill out form one at three different times. You have to do it once a year in the time frame. You have to
2:37:02 fill it out when you first join the board and then when you leave the board, you have to fill it out too. It's slightly different. Um it's form 1F for
2:37:10 when it's your final form one. Um but you have to do those. There's fines and penalties that occur if you don't uh
2:37:18 complete it. So please make every effort to do so, but remember you do have a grace period. Um, you should not need
2:37:24 question, sorry, on the the the financial disclosure forms. If you've already had to fill them out on another board, do you have to fill those out again?
2:37:34 Uh, in the last 12 months, let's assume not another board for the city of Clermont. Okay.
2:37:39 So, yes, you have to fill one out for the city of Clermont. Um, I I've I fill one out, but I list all of the places.
2:37:48 So, as long as city of Clermont is listed under if I can go in there and change it and add it. You can't. Okay.
2:37:53 And you may if you go in I've filled one of these out since uh 2016. And for the life of me, I couldn't find them. I'd go
2:38:00 in and list the client and couldn't find them. Um but as as city attorney for a couple different places, I have to fill them out. I fill them out every year and
2:38:09 they're maintained and it should be on file. And it's on the city's website, correct? Or we can fill this out. Florida Florida Commission on Ethics.
2:38:17 Just Google Florida Commission on Ethics. It's tough to download the form.
2:38:21 Form one. Well, you actually fill it out online now.
2:38:24 Yeah, I tried that, too. Didn't I couldn't even get it online.
2:38:26 Then I I recommend you contact the clerk and she can assist you. We did. Yeah. Okay. All right. Form I was able to get it on my tablet.
2:38:34 Couldn't get it on my computer. Figure that out.
2:38:36 Sometimes it's like Internet Explorer using which version like you're using Google Chrome.
2:38:45 That's what I use. Yeah, we can take it.
2:38:48 So, so the other, so all everything I would say except for some of the Commission on Ethics opinions in here, if you think you have a conflict, are
2:38:56 good reading material. The P packet covers the basics about Florida Sunshine Law and public records, which I talked to you a little bit about last time. I'm
2:39:04 going to talk to you about them again because it was what keeps you out of jail.
2:39:08 Um, then it covers quasi judicial hearings. It covers uh chapter 112 Florida statutes which is the state code of ethics. It covers voting conflicts.
2:39:18 It covers other types of conflicts of interest when you cannot serve. Um 112 uh.313.
2:39:25 I think it goes to like subsection 17. Uh those are all things you should read. I can go over them in more detail
2:39:33 when we talk next time. I know it's after 8:30. But and then I what I have in here may be a benefit to you. I've
2:39:40 got the uh chapter 162 Florida statutes which governs code enforcement. And rather than our home rule, it it's what
2:39:47 gives us the authority to have this board and to enter our orders and to assess fines and keep people into compliance and then when we can
2:39:55 foreclose upon them, uh whether or not this board um gives authorizations to foreclose. All those things are then
2:40:02 162. And then after that, they're also adopted by reference into the city's code of ordinances, which is also listed
2:40:09 in here. One of the things in the city's code of ordinances that you have not heard, but you may hear in the future, are actually public nuisance actions.
2:40:17 You also sit is the public nuisance abatement board. Slightly different procedure than what you've seen so far.
2:40:24 We haven't had one yet, but you may see them and we can we can talk about them in the future. But let's talk about the fun stuff. How to stay out of jail. When
2:40:32 you come into the meeting, do not talk to anyone else, any of your board members about any matter that may foreseeably come before your board. Any
2:40:41 matter that came before this board last time, any matter that's coming before your board tonight. Do not talk to each other about anything that may
2:40:49 foreseeably come before you until that gavl sounds, the meeting starts, we go on the record, then that's your time to
2:40:55 talk about anything. And when the gavl sounds to end the meeting and we call the meeting at 8:35,
2:41:03 don't talk about any matter which might foreseeably come before you. If you do, those are sunshine violations. There are two different types.
2:41:14 There are the kind that the people in the audience and the people that see when you go to your car or you're talking about your grandkids happen and they accuse you of them. the the other
2:41:23 kind or when you intentionally or knowingly commit a sunshine violation.
2:41:27 If you knowingly commit a sunshine violation, it's a seconddegree misdemeanor punishable by 60 days in the county jail. And it does happen. And
2:41:35 there is no prosecutor alive that would like anything more than to put a public official in jail for a violation of the sunshine. Nothing gets them in the
2:41:44 headlines more. It's great for building a career. Just Google Florida sunshine violations. You will find five or six
2:41:53 newspaper articles from late 2025 to today about accusations of sunshine violations. Most of the time those occur
2:42:02 when an agreed party believes two or more of you are doing something that violates the law. Um I have defended
2:42:10 multiple sunshine violations, civil cases where two or more members of the same board appeared to be engaged in a
2:42:19 conversation The agreved party didn't know what they were talking about, but they assumed based on maybe where they were what they
2:42:27 were talking about. Best example I can give you is City of Satellite Beach.
2:42:31 They had a public workshop um noticed where they were going to have experts come in. I think Aaron Brochovich's firm
2:42:39 was going to come in and had to do with water quality around um um Patrick's Air Force Base. It was a hot topic for the
2:42:47 community. Well, it turned out before the meeting they decided not to hold a public workshop. Instead, staff held a
2:42:54 meeting with, let's say, the Aaron Brochovich folks. One member of the governing body attended the meeting for
2:43:02 half an hour. Then that member would leave and another member would come in.
2:43:08 Where did they wait while they were waiting to go in for 30 minutes? They waited in the in the anti- chamber out there and the public wasn't allowed in
2:43:15 because it was just a staff meeting with the Aaron Brochovich people, but the public could see into the building and saw two members of the city council
2:43:24 sitting there and they sued him and we represented him after about the third motion to dismiss the complaint. We won because the one thing they could not allege is what they were talking about.
2:43:36 They knew what was being said inside, but they didn't know what the two two or more members were saying. And you have to be able to prove that or at least
2:43:44 allege it in good faith in Florida um at risk of sanctions what the communication was.
2:43:50 So what's the best rule of thumb? When in doubt, don't.
2:43:57 The sunshine law run, it's great for public business. It is great for the public. It runs contrary to small town politeness.
2:44:06 It does, but it's it's designed to prevent public corruption. It is a wonderful thing. It's a unique thing for Florida compared to other places,
2:44:14 including our legislature. But it when in doubt, don't. So that means if you're out to lunch and you see another
2:44:22 member of the board, do you not speak to them? No. Say hi. But maybe don't go to lunch together. Maybe don't go to the local tavern together on a Friday night.
2:44:31 Um maybe at a Christmas party, say hi.
2:44:33 Just always be aware of your surroundings. Um there is nothing inappropriate about um before the me
2:44:41 meeting you know we we talk about what our grandkids are doing what our kids are doing that thing that's fine but you know just be cognizant there are people
2:44:49 here who are not happy. So if before the meeting you're leaned over and you're talking to each other just imagine how they might think what you're saying. So
2:44:56 just be aware of your surroundings. Um, if uh you know I I if if I ignore you or
2:45:05 if I tell you to stop or something like that, it's about appearances. It appearances do matter. So keep that in mind. What does the sunshine law not prohibit?
2:45:15 One of you can talk to a member of the city council anytime you want. You can talk to a member of the planning board anytime you want. It's two or more members of the same board.
2:45:25 That's what it prohibits outside communications about. Switching to public records.
2:45:32 Public records violations contain the same prohibitions, the same secondderee misdemeanor if you intentionally destroy a public record. So what is a public
2:45:40 record? Back when uh the Florida Constitution was adopted and they adopted this the section of the Constitution and chapter 119, it meant documents.
2:45:51 But what does it really mean? It means anything that can be transmitted or communicated um to convey information.
2:45:58 So, your text messages, if you get a text message uh from a member of the public about the meeting tonight, guess what? That's a public record.
2:46:08 I'm going to leap to the assumption that the city does not provide you all with cell phones.
2:46:14 Even though we have a custodian of records, the clerk, every public official is considered their own custodian of their records. So, your cell phone, there are apps you can buy.
2:46:24 There's oldfashioned, you can take a picture of it. you can do whatever. I obviously I recommend you do not engage in communications with members of the
2:46:32 public about any public business because that is a public record. Um, so you're not allowed to destroy it. If it's requested, you have to be able to
2:46:40 produce it. So you have to find a way to keep and preserve them. There are these very long retention schedules published by uh the Secretary of State's office
2:46:50 about different records and how long they have to be kept. Um, voicemail messages also have to be preserved if it's
2:46:59 related to public business. Um, so to the extent you can, even though it is rude, do not make a habit of using your cell
2:47:07 phone, text messages, and voicemails um to conduct public business because all those are public records. The easiest
2:47:14 thing you can do is every email you send or every email you receive, if you
2:47:21 simply copy the clerk on it, if you well, and if you get it from the city, it's already on the city server. But if you are sending an email to a member of
2:47:30 the public and it's about public business and you're um conveying information or knowledge of some kind, just copy the city clerk on it. It's
2:47:39 then preserved by the city. Um, Facebook.
2:47:46 I hate Facebook.
2:47:48 If you have a Facebook page and it is your private Facebook page, but you talk about your work here on the code
2:47:56 enforcement board, guess what? That information you just stuck on your Facebook page is a public record.
2:48:04 If you create I I maybe you all are running for office but nobody here currently is running for office. You're
2:48:12 on the code enforcement board but there are elected officials who create their own public Facebook page where they want
2:48:20 to talk about their public um ideas and policies and they get to decide at the outset whether they allow comments or they
2:48:29 don't allow comments. you run the risk of creating a public forum if you have a public Facebook page about your public
2:48:37 work and you allow comments for public records purposes. Just know you have to preserve them. You cannot delete them.
2:48:44 You may be able to take them down, but they have to be preserved. Send them to the clerk, but you also do run the risk of creating a open and public forum
2:48:52 which has first amendment issues, not public records issues. But don't delete it. Maintain it. Save it. Give it to the
2:48:59 clerk. Um, quasi judicial hearings. There's a whole section of slides in here. Everything
2:49:07 you do is a quasi judicial hearing. I'm one minute over when I said I would stop. Here's one thing you should know.
2:49:12 The part in there about exparte communications. Any member of the public, any uh respondent that wants to
2:49:19 talk to one of you outside of the public meeting about their issue, that is considered exparte communications. You
2:49:27 have to disclose it to overcome a presumption of bias. You disclose it at the hearing before the hearing starts.
2:49:34 If you have a communications with any of the respondents, if you even though it's not communications, you all are the board.
2:49:41 You are sitting as judges. You make your decision based on the evidence the city provides you and based on the evidence the respondent provides you. Today was a
2:49:49 good illustration of that. We had evidence from both sides. You weigh the evidence. You're not the prosecutors. you're not the investigators.
2:49:58 I highly advise you not to go make site visits. If you do, okay, but you better
2:50:05 disclose it because it's just like an exparte communication. Another way would be if you were I saw this at a planning
2:50:12 board meeting. Somebody was talking about a variance and a board member um went to look to see how expensive it
2:50:20 would be to put the type of fence they wanted to put in and whether or not it would be a hardship. And so they're talking about this website and the the
2:50:27 the amount the cost of the fence from Lowe's. Well, guess what? Now you got to print that out and save it because
2:50:35 that was stupid. Don't do that. So my advice to you is do do your job. Be judges. Don't be prosecutors. Don't be
2:50:42 investigators. If you do, make sure you disclose. Uh the issue there is all about due process and it's about bias.
2:50:49 Uh I have two jobs. One's to keep you out of jail. The other is to try to preserve the record. So if anybody appeals your decision is upheld. Um
2:50:58 exparte part communications also it's not when you talk to the clerk but if you were to talk outside of the meeting to one of the code enforcement uh
2:51:07 officers who had investigated a case and you had a question about it. I'm not telling you it's wrong to do that. I'm advising I'm discouraging you from doing
2:51:14 it. But disclose it who you talk to when you talk to them about what that's so the respondent has the due process that
2:51:22 they can inquire of you or they can inquire of them. So, I would recommend refraining from doing that, but if you do, disclose.
2:51:32 3 minutes over what I said. I think you all have homework. Flip through this, find something. Our next meeting, have a
2:51:40 question. You can also call me. Um, I will give you a card. I'm not going to read my cell phone into the record, but
2:51:49 you can call me and I'll answer any questions you have. Do you all have any questions as you sit here today before you want to leave?
2:51:56 You said site visits. Does that include the drive by a purposeful drive by if it happens to be on Highway 50 as you drive by and you drive by it every day? No, you don't
2:52:04 have to disclose that. But if you purposfully went by, yeah, you should disclose Yeah, I would disclose it in abundance of caution because it protects the city
2:52:13 from any later, you know, uh if we're The way it comes up isn't because somebody saw you. The way it comes up
2:52:20 would be if you said, "Well, look, I went and drove by your property and duh." Okay, well, they didn't know that when the hearing started. You can still disclose it and you can talk about it and they can ask you questions about it.
2:52:30 It's just better if you get that out out front. It's better for the city at the end of the day. Um I don't obviously you're a code
2:52:38 enforcement board but I usually have issues with other boards like planning board members who really really want to be code enforcement me code enforcement
2:52:47 board members and so they at the planning board meeting like to announce all the code enforcement violations that they see not here in Clermont but in
2:52:53 other places. Um so I would just refrain from being an independent prosecutor.
2:52:59 make your decisions based on the competent substantial evidence you hear before you. Uh make sure you this board is excellent about giving due process.
2:53:09 Please note that while respondents and members of the public are allowed to speak, um you know, uh repetitive,
2:53:18 redundant, uh you know, topics that don't have any issue to it, you're okay to politely shut it down or to say, "Do you have any
2:53:26 further comments?" You can do that as a board. Um, you don't need to let him go out on adnauseium about the same thing for 20 minutes. It is also nobody ever
2:53:35 got reversed for giving too much due process. Um, so and you can always inquire of me while I'm sitting there.
2:53:42 Is it okay to ask them to stop making repetitive comments? Absolutely.
2:53:47 So, Brian, if if a case comes out um of a business that you visited because you were going to buy something
2:53:55 and that and that case happens to come up down the road, do you disclose that you were at that business?
2:54:04 No, you weren't you weren't there for purposes of of reaching a conclusion in the case. You were just there shopping.
2:54:10 But you don't have to disclose that, right? Hey, I see this case. I was at that store.
2:54:14 Yeah, I've been to Walmart. So, no, it's uh because you're supposed to make your decision based on the evidence you hear at the hearing, right?
2:54:21 Not on anything outside without a disclosure and the opportunity to question about it. Um no, if you go to a restaurant uh that has a code
2:54:30 enforcement by Yeah, it's a good You don't need to disclose that if you went there to check on the They're always in violation. I don't know why, but restaurants are always in violation for some reason or other.
2:54:40 Yeah. Um any other questions? No, I'm done.
2:54:49 Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor?