Good morning. My name is Jeff Fuller. I'm the special magistrate who's been assigned to the special magistrate agenda for today, November 10th, 2025. Welcome to Pinellas County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Hearings. The special magistrate is charged with conducting hearings to determine whether an alleged violation of the county code has occurred. In order to meet that obligation, all parties or their representatives will be allowed an opportunity to be heard on matters relevant to the alleged violations. All witnesses offering testimony or presenting evidence will be required to swear or affirm that the testimony they provide is the truth. The order of presentation will begin with the county presenting their evidence of the alleged violations, and then the respondent shall present his or her case. Both parties shall have an opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses. The special magistrate may question any witness. The clerk will announce the names of the cases from the agenda. When you hear your case called, please respond by coming to the podium with your representative and or any witnesses to be sworn in. When addressing the special magistrate, please speak clearly into the microphone. When the clerk calls the order, we don't always follow exactly the order for a variety of reasons on the agenda. So please listen up when it's announced, and you'll know to come up to the podium. Any person who decides to appeal the decision of the Code Enforcement Special Magistrate with respect to any matter considered at this hearing will need a verbatim record of the proceedings, and for such purposes may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The record is not provided by Pinellas County. Nicole, would you please read item number one from the agenda? Item number one, rescheduled from November 17, 2025, Department, PCCLB, Matter, Advertising Code Violation, Holding Out Code Violation, Case Number, CLB-MG25-00419, CLB-MG25-00420, Investigator Jay Pageant, Citation Number, CLB-CT25-00516, CLB-CT25-00517, Defendant, Corey A. Steiner, Notice Address, Corey A. Steiner, 7826 Aiden Loop, Newport Ritchie, Florida 34655, Email Address, steinercorey at gmail.com, and City of Seminole, Attention Jim Reeves, Building Official, Plaintiff's Witness, 9199-113th Street North, Seminole, Florida 33772, and PCCLB, Investigator Jay Pageant, Plaintiff's Witness, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida 33756, and Yartley Collette, Esquire, Assistant County Attorney for PCCLB, CLB, CO, and Katrina Scagnelli, Legal Secretary, Pinellas County Attorney's Office, 315 Court Street, 6th floor, Clearwater, Florida 33756, Violation Address, FloridaSouthernRenovations.com, Google, and Google. Thank you. Who is here for that case? Yartley Collette for the county, along with Investigator Pageant. All right. Mr. Steiner here. I don't see Mr. Steiner here. In reviewing the file, I noted that he received email notice moving this from November 17th to today, but the post office indicates that the mailed notices have not been received by him. In spite of us being in 2025, I don't think the statutes and codes recognize email service for proper notice, so I'm going to continue this to January 23rd, 2026, at 9 a.m. Thank you, Magister. Would you read item number two? Yes, sir. Item number two, Department Code Enforcement, Matter, Minimum Housing Code Violation, Trash and Debris Code Violation, Zoning Code Violation. Case number, CCM-25-00078. Officer B. Hughes, Owner, Revocable Family Trust, LLC. Notice Address, Revocable Family Trust, LLC, 4532 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, 3-3-6-0-9, and Revocable Family Trust, LLC, 452-4532 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, 3-3-6-0-9, and Beacon Hill Corporate Services, LLC, Registered Agent for Revocable Family Trust, LLC, 315 South Plant Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 3-3-6-0-6, and B4B-3-11, LLC, Manager for Revocable Family Trust, LLC, Unit 452, Tampa, Florida, 3-3-6-0-9, Violation Address, 5-8-3-1-64th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 3-3-7-0-9. Who is here for that case? Officer Hughes with the county. Legal Assistant for Attorney Christopher Fauntleroy. All right, it's my understanding that Attorney Fauntleroy has a conflict? Yes, my name is Melissa Blancruz, and I am appearing for him because he is currently out of state, and he also has a conflicting pretrial conference. What says the county? I had received an email from him this morning basically saying the same thing, and I'm finally continuing. We'll continue this to December 15th, 2025, 9 a.m. You probably should write that down or get something from somebody. Thank you so much. So we'll go ahead and continue it to then. I would have preferred that a written motion had been filed. Yes, I did provide the motion for continuance. I provided it to, I believe, do you have it? I provided it to, yes. Do you have it? She gave you a motion to continue. Yes, the motion to continue, as well as a notice of limited appearance. Is it a notice of appearance? It should be under 8.5 a.m. this morning. Okay. We can keep these copies for us? Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay, the defendant's motion for continue will be granted. It will be continued to December 15th, 2025, at 9 a.m. Thank you. Thank you, Magistrate. Thank you, Magistrate. We ready for another one? Yes. I'm going to see what item, item 9. Nicole, do you have copies? Copies of? The files. For this? Yeah. Oh, this one is a joint stipulation that's coming up now. Gotcha. Sorry. Yes, joint stipulation. So the next three will be a joint stipulation. This one and then the two after. Okay. Nicole, would you please read item number 9? Okay, please forgive me if I mess up the name. Item 9, Department Code Enforcement. Matter, Minimum Housing Code Violation. Trash and Debris Code Violation. Case number CCM-25-00083. Officer B. Hughes, owner X. Sharon Camphu, Lee Michelle Tu, notice address X. Sharon Camphu, Lee Michelle Tu, 612 South Lincoln Avenue, Clearwater, Florida, 33756-5961. And B. Hughes, Special Magistrate Officer, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut, Street, Clearwater, Florida, 33756. Violation address, 15500, George Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida, 33760. Who is here for that case? Understand that we have a joint stipulation? Yes, sir. And I'm Officer Hughes of Pinellas County. My name is Kimmy Fan. I'm a property manager for 70th Street Street and Ms. Ali. Okay. Can I see the joint stip? Oh. Mr. Officer Howard, let's have it. Yes. Same. All right. I'm going to approve the joint stipulation. I'm going to find that there is a violation of Code Section 22-299, order that the property be brought into compliance by December 10th, 2025. Failing to do so, we'll assess a fine in the amount of $100 per day. I'm going to find that there is a violation of Code Section 58-304, order that the property to be brought into compliance by December 10th, 2025. Failing to do so, we'll assess a fine in the amount of $100. Also, assess court costs in the amount of $224.95 to be paid on or before December 10th, 2025. Thank you, Magistrate. Really? Do you have any other cases? Who, me? No, Officer Hughes. What is that? Oh, no. The two joint stipulations are yours, correct? I have two joint stipulations. That already completed. This is Ms. Harrington. Oh, for you. Yes, my neighbor packing and the joint stipulation. I'll be right with you. She'll be right. Oh, she'll be with you, okay? She'll come get you. Oh, really? That is cool. The fact that I even learned. The girl was a memorable one. I'm sure I saw you. I came to the temperature at the night time. You had a six-story building downtown. It broke. They burst, yeah. Wow. We have one more joint stipulation. I mean, we have two stipulations we can do. I mean, you got over that one. Which one's next? The next one would be item six. Yeah, I bet you do. And after item six, we have item five. Magistrate. No. Hmm? No. Do now. Oh, he heard you. I didn't even know that that was there until now. Let me give this to you. Yes, ma'am. Which one was next? Item six, the one with Ms. Oops, no. Doesn't matter. We can just, the magistrate just needs this. That's, you know, the magistrate just needs a joint stipulation, so I'm going to take it from Nick. We just have to show it to the mat. Nicole. Really? The longer stuff there. It's not. It's not even in the way. It's not even in the way. I don't see. Hi. You ready? Okay. Yeah, please read item number six. Item number six, department code enforcement matter zoning code violation. Case number CCM-25-00089, Officer D. Duvall, Owner, Kahana Allen, Notice Address, Kahana Allen, 692 Columbus Drive, Tierra Verde, Florida, 33715, and D. Duvall, Special Magistrate Officer, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Colorado, Florida, 33756. Violation address, 692 Columbus Drive, Tierra Verde, Florida, 33715. Who is here for that case, for the county? Officer Duvall and Lauren Rubenstein, Hillward Henderson, and also with me today is my client, Alan Kahana. I understand there's a joint stipulation on this matter? That is correct. All right. I'm going to approve the joint stipulation. I'm going to find a violation of Code Section 138-90, order that the property will be brought into compliance by January 9, 2026. Failing to do so will result in imposition of a daily finding amount of $100 per day. Also, a court cost, the amount of $216.85, due on or before January 9, 2026. Thank you, Your Honor. All right. Very good. Thank you. Ms. Rubenstein. You guys dated the joint stip as January of 2025. I did? Yes, you did. I'll fix that. That'd be difficult to come and find. Do you have a business card? Thank you. I'll send you also a copy of the order, okay? No, no, no. We don't have a printer. Things happen on Monday. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye. I'm going to say something else. Will you please read item number five from the agenda? Item number five, department, code enforcement, matter, minimum housing code violation, inoperable vehicle code violation, trash and debris code violation, zoning code violation, case number, CCM-25-00091, Officer D. Duvall, owner, CUNS Walter Z., CUNS Rhonda B., notice address, CUNS Walter, CUNS Rhonda 5931, 138th Court, Colorado, Florida, 33760, and CUNS Walter Z., CUNS Rhonda B., 5931, 138th Court, Colorado, Florida, 33760, and D. Duvall, Special Magistrate Officer, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Colorado, Florida, 33756, and violation address, 5931, 138th Court, Clearwater, Florida, 33760. Who is here for the county? Officer Duvall. Rhonda CUNS and Walter CUNS. Thank you. I understand there's a joint stipulation on this matter? That is correct. All right. I'm going to approve the joint stipulation. I'm going to find that there is a violation of Code Section 22-299, order that the property be brought into compliance by January 9, 2026. Failing to do so will result in the imposition of a daily fine in the amount of $100 per day. I'm going to find that there is a violation of Code Section 58-270, order that the property be brought into compliance by January 9, 2026. Failing to do so will assess a fine in the amount of $100 per day. I'm going to find that there is a violation of Code Section 58-304, order that the property be brought into compliance by January 9, 2026. Failing to do so will result in the imposition of a daily fine in the amount of $100 per day. I'm going to find that there is a violation of Code Section 138-90, order that the property be brought into compliance by January 9, 2026. Failing to do so will result in the imposition of a fine of $100 per day. I'm going to find that there is a violation of Code Section 138-3220, order that the property be brought into compliance by January 9, 2026. Failing to do so will result in the imposition of a fine of $100 per day. I'm also going to assess court costs the amount of $224.14. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I have my emails on the line. You too. We'll do it. Thank you so much. Communications, please stop recording. Nicole, would you please read item number 10 from the agenda? Item number 10, department code enforcement matter. Minimum housing code violation, trash and debris code violation, zoning code violation. Case number CCM-25-00082. Officer B. Hughes, owner, Harrington Patricia J. Notice address, Harrington Patricia J. 882 Park Street South, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33707-2964. And B. Hughes, special magistrate officer, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida, 33756. Violation address, 882 Park Street South, South Pasadena, Florida, 33707. Who's here for the county? Officer Hughes with Pinellas County. Who's here for the owner? Patricia Harrington. Patricia Harrington. Mike Cavazzoli. My understanding is there's a joint stipulation on this matter? Yes, sir. All right. I'm going to approve the joint stipulation. I'm going to find that there's a violation of Code Section 22-299, order that the property be brought into compliance by January 10, 2026. Failing to do so will result in the imposition of a daily fine in the amount of $100 per day. I'm going to find that there's a violation of Code Section 58-304, order that the property be brought into compliance by January 10, 2026. Failing to do so will result in the imposition of a daily fine in the amount of $100 per day. I'm going to find that there is a violation of Code Section 138-3220, order that the property be brought into compliance by January 10, 2026. Failing to do so will result in imposition of a fine in the amount of $100 per day. I'm also going to assess court costs in the amount of $234.40. Thank you, that's great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Communications, please stop recording. Mr. DeVall. Nicole, would you please read item number three? Item number three, Department Code Enforcement. Matter. Minimum housing code violation. Trash and debris code violation. Case number, CCM-25-00080. Officer, D. DeVall. Owner, Gordon Phillips Scott. Notice address, Gordon Phillips Scott. 112, Point Sienna Lane, Largo, Florida. 33770-2614. And D. DeVall, Special Magistrate Officer. Officer, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida. 33756. D. DeVall at Pinellas.gov. Violation address, 112, Point Sienna Lane, Largo, Florida. 33770-2614. And who is here for that case? Officer DeVall, Pinellas County Code. Has anyone signed in for this case? No, Magistrate. Have you received any voicemails or emails concerning this hearing? No, Magistrate. All right. Officer DeVall, you may proceed. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. So, good morning, Magistrate. Just making sure of you, do you have Exhibit A? Okay, I have one right here. I can give it. Thank you. Okay, again, good morning, Magistrate. The property where the alleged violation exists is 112, Point Sienna Lane in Largo, Florida, which is located in unincorporated Pinellas County. The owner is Phillip Scott Gordon, who is not present for today's hearing. These violations have been in occurrence since on or before July 7th of 2025. I re-inspected the property on October 30th, and the violations continue. I'd like to enter into evidence the Notice of Hearing and Composite Exhibit A and B, of which I will start with Exhibit A to show some photos of the violations. All right. Hearing no objection, Exhibit A will be admitted into evidence. Okay, just very quickly to explain, this property is located down in Largo on the water. This photo here for minimum housing just shows a picture of the front of the house. The house does appear to be vacant. Every time I've gone, there's never been an answer at the door. We've left several cards and tried to reach out to this property owner with no luck. The back of the property, which is viewable, there are no fences around in this neighborhood, is a pool that is not being maintained in any way. It is completely black with stagnant water. And then we do have some trash and debris around that pool area and up around the front door of the property. Again, Magistrate, I did visit the property on the 30th of October and observe that the violations continue. I do have Exhibit B's to show these violations and submit them in evidence. All right. Hearing no objection, Exhibit B will be admitted into evidence. Just showing similar pictures again, a photo of the front of the house. There is a yard service, which is nice. The property is being either a yard service or the neighbors. Someone is cutting the yard. I'm not sure. But, again, the pool is not changed in any way. It continues to have the black stagnant water. And the areas around the pool and the front door continue to have trash and debris. So, Magistrate, the county requests you fine the property in violations of Code Section 22299 for minimum housing and Code Section 58304 for trash and debris and issue an order to have the property brought into compliance within 30 days or a fine in the amount of $100 per day per violation. Has anyone signed in for that case since we've started the hearing? No, Magistrate. I have not seen anyone come into the hearing room that wasn't here already and had nothing to do with this case. I am going to find a violation of Code Section 22-299 in order that the property will be brought into compliance within 30 days. Nicole, when's 30 days? Wednesday, December 10, 2025. Which is December 10, 2025. Failing to do so will result in imposition of a fine of $100 per day. I'm going to find a violation of Code Section 58-304, order that the property brought into compliance in 30 days, which is December 10, 2025 at 5 p.m. Failing to do so will result in imposition of a fine in the amount of $100 per day. Thank you, Magistrate. What would you read, item number 4? Item number 4, rescheduled to November 17, 2025. Department code enforcement. Matter. Minimum housing code violation. Inoperable vehicle code violation. Trash and debris code violation. Zoning code violation. Case number CCM-25-00085. Officer D. Duvall. Owner. Redmark Real Estate, Inc. Notice address. Redmark Real Estate, Inc. 1275, Cediva Circle North, Clearwater, Florida 33755-1144. And Mark A. Redinger, registered agent for Redmark Real Estate, Inc. 1275, Cediva Circle North, Clearwater, Florida 33755-1144. And Mark A. Redinger, president for Redmark Real Estate, Inc. 1275, 1275, Cediva Circle North, Clearwater, Florida 33755-1144. And D. Duvall, special magistrate officer. Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida 33756. Violation address. Violation address, 15448 Avalon Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 33760. All right. It is my understanding that that case has been rescheduled for November 17, 2025, which is Magistrate Matthews' calendar. Correct. Yes. Would you read item number seven? Item number seven, rescheduled to November 17, 2025, Department Code Enforcement, matter, noise ordinance code violation, case number CCM-25-00087, officer D. Duvall, owner, Anclote Casita, LLC. Notice address, Anclote Casita, LLC, 1257 Anclote Road, Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689. And Anderson Jason K., registered agent for Anclote Casita, LLC, 1257 Anclote Road, Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689. And Anderson Jason K., manager for Anclote Casita, LLC, 1257 Anclote Road, Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689. And D. Duvall, special magistrate officer, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida 33756. Violation address, 1312 Lane Avenue, Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689. Okay, it's my understanding that this matter has been rescheduled to November 17, 2025, which is Magistrate Matthews' calendar. Yes. Would you please read item number eight from the docket? Item number eight, department code enforcement, matter, minimum housing code violation, zoning code violation. Case number, CCM-25-00084. Officer V. Hughes, owner, Calzadilla, Evelio, 16116, 4th Street East, Reddington Beach, Florida 33708-1614. Notice address, Calzadilla, Evelio, 16116, 4th Street East, Reddington Beach, Florida 33708-1614. And B. Hughes, special magistrate officer, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida 33756. Violation address, 4595 49th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33709. And who is here for that case? For the county officer, Hughes. Is it Evelio, Calzadilla, or anyone representing him or her present? Anybody signed in on this case? No, magistrate. Have you received any voicemails or emails concerning this case? I have not. All right, would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. The county may proceed. Thank you, sir. So the property where the alleged violation exists is 4595 49th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33709, located in unincorporated Pinellas County. The owner, Evelio, Calzadilla, is not present for today's hearing. The violations have been on occurrence since on or before, March 6th of 2025. And I'd like to enter Exhibit A into evidence. Hearing no objection, Exhibit A will be admitted into evidence. Okay. So this property used to be like a convenience store, and it's been turned into what's called the Purple Haze, which is a tobacco store. And the property owner basically has had two development review meetings with planning and zoning and all the different people from the county, both in 2022 and then in 2025. However, he never obtained the appropriate items that were needed in order to make the changes. And I'm going to go ahead and start with a blow-up of the site plan. It basically shows that they had existing asphalt, and they initially, when we're just going to reseal it, and I will demonstrate in just a moment that it basically was completely removed with concrete or completely removed and concrete put in, in addition to most of their natural areas with grass and such where turf was put in instead. And in addition, they had a walk-in cooler that you can see indicated by the door opening that is pretty much closed off. So that was the original site plan. So this is the image of the Purple Haze right now. They had initially gotten a permit to do some renovations from the inside, but as I just stated, they did a lot more than that. They went ahead and completely removed all the asphalt, put in concrete, closed off the cooler, which they didn't get permits for, and added fake turf. So this is demonstrating the change of use, changing it from the fast food to the Purple Haze, and all the different items that they did without getting an appropriate zoning clearance. This again shows pictures of the changes that they did to the site plan. They basically, again, added all the, removed all the natural vegetation, both in the front corner, along the side, and on each side of the building, and put in the turf. This, oh, and I, and excuse me, and also all the concrete, all the asphalt was removed and concrete installed. And again, the door to the cooler was removed and enclosed. These are just some more pictures showing basically all the, you know, the concrete, the change to the structures. These are just pictures of what the property looked like before. This is from 2016, when it was the, still the convenience store with the asphalt and the outdoor coolers. And then this is a picture from February of 2022, just showing the, starting the changes where it still had the vegetation that had been removed, but it was still grass. They were putting the asphalt, or excuse me, the concrete in, so that was in 2022. This is a Google image of January 2017, where the cooler still had the walkthrough door, and this shows where it's been closed off in November of 2022. Additionally, they have a few minimum housing violations, not with overgrowth or anything of that nature, but they have some prohibited vehicles, or I should say inoperable vehicles. When they did have their development review meeting, the building and development review services didn't have a problem with him having his vehicles there, but they don't have current tags. You can see no tag here, and there was no tag here. And they also have just equipment laying in the ground and some trash and debris. So for commercial property, that is all included under the minimum housing violation of 22-231. And the debris, the inoperative vehicles, all fall under that code. So magistrate, the property was re-inspected on November 3rd of 2025, and the violations continue. Photos were taken on that date, and I would like to submit them as composite Exhibit B. Hearing no objection, Exhibit B will be admitted into evidence. So as a side note, before I show the pictures, because there's pretty much been no change, I have spoken with the property owner, so he is aware. I did listen to both of development review meetings since he's purchased the property with him wanting to change it to the Purple Haze. Everything has been explained to him. I explained that it was going to go before the magistrate, so I was kind of surprised he wasn't here today. So he is very much aware of the violations, and that it, you know, it was going to be scheduled for today. So the first pictures I have is just showing the few minimum housing violations. Like I said, for a commercial property, that would include the vehicles that aren't tagged that are still present. There's just a can with some trash in it, and some of the equipment that they have that's being stored in the grass. Here are more pictures of just some piping and such, and again, just the vehicles that don't have current tags. This is showing the change of use from the food store to the Purple Haze, the tobacco sales store, and again, without any zoning clearance for the change of use. And these are pictures of the change to the original site plan that, again, included removing all the asphalt, removing a large amount of the vegetation, natural vegetation, and putting in turf, and closing off, I think it's in the next pictures, closing off the cooler area, the walk-in cooler, without any kind of permitting or zoning clearance. So again, the change to their site plan. So magistrate, the county requests that you find the property in violation and issue in order to have the property brought into compliance. The county is asking for the allowance of 30 days to comply, and it's still found in violation to assign a daily fine amount of $250 per day per violation code for sections 22-231, the minimum housing, 138-90 for the zoning clearance required for the change of use, and 138-179 for the items that are no longer in adherence to the site plan. All right. Has anybody come in for this case since we started the hearing? No, magistrate. Heard anything by email or voicemail? No, magistrate. All right. I am going to find a code section violation of 22-231, order that the property be brought in and complies within 30 days. Nicole wins 30 days. Wednesday, December 10, 2025. December 10, 2025 at 5 p.m. Failing to do so will assess a fine in the amount of $250 per day. I'm going to find a violation of code section 138-90, order that the property be brought in and complies within 30 days, which is December 10, 2025 at 5 p.m. Failing to do so will result in imposition of a daily fine in the amount of $250. I'm going to find a violation of code section 138-179, order that the property be brought into compliance within 30 days, which is December 10, 2025 at 5 p.m. Failing to do so will result in the imposition of a daily fine in the amount of $250. Thank you, magistrate. One more case. You want to kill it before we do this last one? Yes, so that the officers can already. That's the only one we have. Okay. What number is that? Item 11. It's labeled wrong. That's why you didn't see it. Nicole, would you please call item number 11? Item number 11. Department code enforcement matter. Minimum housing code violation. Inoperable vehicle code violation. Trash and debris code violation. Zoning code violation. Case number CCM-25-00081. Officer B. Hughes. Owner, Property Services M&K LLC. Notice address, Property Services M&K LLC, 16103 5th Street East, Reddington Beach, Florida, 33708-1615. And Property Services M&K LLC, 16103 5th Street East, Reddington Beach, Florida, 33708-1615. And Legal Inc. Corporate Services Inc. Registered Agent for Property Services M&K LLC, 476 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, 32202. And United States Corporation Agents Inc. Registered Agent for Legal Inc. Corporate Services Inc. 476 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, 32202. And Legal Inc. Corporate Services Inc. 10601 Clarence Drive, Suite 250, Frisco, Texas, 75033. And Karimi Mohamed, Authorized Member for Property Services M&K LLC, 16103 5th Street East, Reddington Beach, Florida, 33708-1615. And Karimi Astan Kumars, Authorized Member for Property Services M&K LLC, 16103 5th Street East, Reddington Beach, Florida, 33708-1615. And B. Hughes, Special Magistrate Officer, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida, 33756. Violation Address, 11625, 131st Street, North, Largo, Florida, 33774. Who is here for that case? Officer Hughes for Pinellas County. Anyone here for Property Service M&K LLC? Has anyone signed in for this case? No, Magistrate. Have you heard anything, voicemail or email concerning this hearing? I have not, Magistrate. All right. County may proceed. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Go ahead. Thank you. So the property where the alleged violation exists is 11625, 131st Street, North, Largo, Florida, 33774, located in unincorporated Pinellas County. The owner, Property Services M&K LLC, is not present for today's hearing. The violations have been in occurrence since on or before, August 19th of 2025, and I would like to enter the Notice of Hearing and Composite Exhibit A into evidence. Hearing no objection, Exhibit A will be admitted into evidence. Oh, you have it? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry, sir. I was waiting. Okay, so when I did my first inspection on October 1st of 2025, there were multiple violations present. The first set of pictures shows the minimum housing. There was basically a hole cut out in the wall, so there's a hole to the exterior on the outside of the wall where a window unit was placed through the wall, and it's not sealed up. There's trash and debris, or excuse me, there's algae-like substance on the exterior walls. You can see it here and here. There is a gable vent with broken pieces. There are rotted wood on the soffit and fascia. There's a boarded window where the glass is broken. There's cardboard being used on one of the window air conditioners. The following code is the sanitation code. They had all of their trash. There's multiple people living at this house. The property owner does not live there. I would say I've seen anywhere between six and ten people every time I've been there. So they have multiple people being there. There's only one person that says he has a lease. I think he's subleasing out the rooms. So the trash and debris was all over the property the day that I went and overflowing from the trash cans. They had several inoperative vehicles, and by inoperative, the tags were expired on two of the vehicles that were present. They had a large amount of trash and debris with just discarded tires, you know, just items, laundry basket with trash in it, all kinds of bicycles, various items just all over the property in addition to some overgrowth. Just more pictures of the trash and debris. It was pretty much everywhere you looked in addition to overgrowth. They were also using one of the RVs that was completely hooked up into the sewer line, and someone was living in the RV, which is a violation, using an RV as an accessory dwelling in a residential neighborhood. So, Magistrate, the property was re-inspected on November 3rd of 2025, and the violations continue. Photos were taken on that date, and I would like to submit them as composite Exhibit B. Hearing no objection to Exhibit B, Exhibit B will be admitted into evidence. Okay, so I have not had any contact from the owners. There is a for sale sign listed on the fence, so I did reach out to the real estate company multiple times, and they had told me they would get me in touch with the owners, but they never have. There were very little changes on the date that I went back out on November 3rd. The minimum housing violations still existed with the broken gable, the garage doors in disrepair. The windows had some kind of vinyl instead of window material. Again, the hole where the air conditioning unit was put through the wall, the window unit put through the wall. The window was still boarded. There was still peeling paint, rotted wood on the fascia and the soffit. This window, I don't believe it's closable. It's basically fallen down. The frame has fallen down. Again, the window units basically have either a pillow or cardboard stuffed around them rather than building material. There's algae-like substances around the exterior of the property. The skirting around the house is now gone in this section by the plumbing. This is a picture of the electric meter. That has now been pulled, so there's no power to the property, and I discovered this, again, during my re-inspection on November 3rd. They had a generator running at the time, and, again, the garage door is in disrepair. The two vehicles were still on the property that were inoperative by basically no current tag and flat tire. The trash and debris was still present, and the overgrowth was still present with the tires, you know, buckets, overgrowth. So a lot of items left where the RV had been, and, again, just more pictures of the piles of debris on the property. So since that time, I did notify the area officer and let him know that the electric meter had been pulled. As a result of that, the following day, he did condemn the property for having no power. That's not a code I'm going to request to be cited. I was just making you aware that the property was actually condemned the following day on November 4th. So when I did return, as I showed in my pictures, the RV has since been removed, and actually there wasn't overflowing garbage out of the trash cans at that time. But the other violations remain. So, magistrate, the county requests that you find the property in violation and issue an order to have the property brought into compliance. The county is asking for the allowance of 30 days to comply, and if still found in violation, assign a daily fine amount of $250 per day for code sections 22-299, 58-270, and 58-304, and issue a finding of fact order for sections 22-301, which was the sanitation violation, and 138-3210, which was using the RV as an accessory dwelling. That way, if it were to come back, we would be able to find them in violation again as a repeat violator. I did notice a gentleman come in while this hearing was going on. Does he have anything to do with this case? No, magistrate. Heard anything by email or voicemail concerning this? I have not. All right, I am going to find a violation of code section 22-299, order that the property be brought into compliance within 30 days. Nicole wins 30 days. Wednesday, December 10, 2025. December 10, 2025 at 5 p.m. Failing to do so will result in imposition of a daily fine in the amount of $250 per day. As to the violation of code section 22-301, I am going to find that there was a violation of section 22-301. However, it is now in compliance, and so I will make no further order concerning it. I am going to find that there is a violation of code section 58-270, order that the property be brought into compliance within 30 days, which is December 10, 2025 at 5 p.m. Failing to do so will result in an imposition of a fine of $250 per day. I am going to find that there is a violation of code section 58-304, order that the property be brought into compliance within 30 days. Failing to do so will result in a daily fine of $250 per day. 30 days is December 10, 2025 at 5 p.m. As far as code section 138-3210, I am going to find that there was a violation of that code section. However, the property is now in compliance, so I will make no further order concerning that. Thank you, Magistrate. Are we ready for item 1? Yes. Nicole, would you please read item number 1? Item number 1, rescheduled from November 17, 2025, Department PCCLB, matter, advertising code violation, holding out code violation, case number CLB-MG25-00419, CLB-MG25-00420, investigator Jay Padgett, citation number CLB-CT25-00516, CLB-CT25-00517, defendant Corey A. Steiner, notice address, Corey A. Steiner, 7826 Aiden Loop, Newport Ritchie, Florida, 34655, steinercorey at gmail.com, and city of Seminole, attention, Jim Reeves, building official, plaintiff's witness, 9199-113th Street North, Seminole, Florida, 33772, and PCCLB investigator Jay Padgett, plaintiff's witness, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida, 33756, and Yartley Collette, Esquire, assistant county attorney for PCCLB, CO, Eccatrina Scagnelli, legal secretary, Pinellas County Attorney's Office, 315 Court Street, 6th floor, Clearwater, Florida, 33756, violation address, floridasouthernrenovations.com, Google, and Google. All right, we had previously called this case, and now we have everybody here, so Mr. Steiner, would you please come up to the podium? Who is appearing for the county? Yartley Collette for the county, along with Investigator Padgett. And your name, sir, for the record? Corey Steiner. Okay, Mr. Steiner and Investigator Padgett, would you please raise your right hands? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? All right. Mr. Steiner, you may have a seat. We'll call you back up. County may proceed. Thank you, Magistrate. Sorry. Can you mark it? Yeah, thank you. All right. Good morning, Investigator. Good morning. Would you please summarize the facts and circumstances, including any supporting documentation regarding the citations we are here for today? Yes. So on June 16th of 2025, I received a report from Jim Reeves, the City of Seminole building official, about an unlicensed contractor advertising his company at the Home Depot in Seminole. Mr. Reeves stated that the company is Southern Renovations, LLC. On June 17th, 2025, upon further investigation, I tied the company to a Corey Steiner of Newport-Ritchie. Mr. Steiner does not hold any license with the state or the county, and is advertising his company online in Pinellas County. On July 16th of 2025, I determined that Mr. Steiner has previously been cited before for unlicensed advertising and holding himself out to the public. Currently, Mr. Steiner has a lien placed on him by the county. Upon then, I issued two citations to Mr. Steiner for unlicensed advertising and holding himself out to the county or to the public, which would be his second offense. Exhibit one is the Sunbiz listing for Southern Renovations, LLC, with Mr. Steiner's address, listing Mr. Steiner on the company, listing himself as the owner, being the sole person listed for Southern Renovations, LLC. County moves the Sunbiz pronounce in as county's exhibit one. Mr. Steiner, any objection to exhibit one? Sir, if you speak, can you please come up to the podium? Okay, I'll admit exhibit one. Those are two different things we're talking about, the license and that. Exhibit two. These are the captions of the advertising I found online for Southern Renovations, LLC. In this caption, displaying Pinellas County, as indicated, the service area with Mr. Steiner's phone number, areas served, clear water in nearby areas, description of the company, and claiming that they are licensed and insured. A link from Google led me to Mr. Steiner's website for Southern Renovations. From concept to creation, we are here to make your dreams become a reality. Trades listed on the website under exterior work include windows and doors, drywall and texture with images captioning the work that Mr. Steiner performs, including exterior windows. Check out some windows and doors we've done. Again, captions of the work Mr. Steiner performs, including exterior window replacement. Another caption from the webpage, check out the drywall and texture we've done, displaying drywall work in this image. Under the tab of more, it's about the company, listing Mr. Steiner, his image for the company, a bio of himself, stating that in the year 2019, he decided to open up his own renovation business. And the last caption with Mr. Steiner listed on the company with his contact information. County moves the composite of the Google printout and the website. Printouts in is County's composite Exhibit 2. Any objection to Exhibit 2? Exhibit 2 will be admitted into evidence. Okay. Exhibit 3, into my research into Mr. Steiner. I checked on DBPR with the state and with PCCLB. Did not find that he held any contractor's license. This is my affidavit of licensure for Mr. Steiner. County moves the affidavit of licensure in his county is Exhibit 3. You mentioned, Mr. Steiner, that one of your positions is that you are licensed. So, I'm going to admit this into evidence, but it's just evidence. You may present your own testimony and evidence concerning the licensure. So, Exhibit 3 will be admitted into evidence. Exhibit 4, composite of exhibit of Mr. Steiner's previous violations. Two citations were issued to Mr. Steiner, CT24-1041, CT24-1042 were issued in February of last year. This is the current order of lien for Mr. Steiner for those two citations. And the final order for those two citations, finding Mr. Steiner in violation for holding himself out and unlicensed advertising to the public in Pinellas County. And that final order was dated 3 July of 2024. County moves for the order, lien, and prior violation document in his county's composite Exhibit 4. Any objection to Exhibit 4? All right, Exhibit 4 will be admitted into evidence. So, for the record, these were the two citations issued to Mr. Steiner, 25-00516 for unlicensed advertising, CT25-00517 for holding himself out while advertising to the public. And, Investigator, I want to walk through these citations just quickly for the record. This first one, Citation 25-00516 for the violation of 22-14-6 unlicensed contractor advertising remodeling services, including drywall and carpentry via website Google in Pinellas County, Florida. Can you tell me exactly regarding what advertising was done for drywall and carpentry? The advertising on his website included windows and doors, clearly exterior window and door work, and drywall work as well. For the exterior window and door work that you cited for, do you have to have a license, either a county license or a license through DBPR to do that type of work? Yes. For the drywall work, would you have to have a license through either the county or the state, DBPR when I mean is Department of Business and Professional Regulation to do drywall work as a contractor? You would have to have a specialty license through Pinellas County through the PCCLB to perform drywall work. And then, well, I'll go on, county will go on and move citation, it's in the record, but I'll move citation 25-00516 in as county's Exhibit 5. Part of the record, so Exhibit 5 will be admitted. And then, for citation CT25-00517, code violation 22-14 for unlicensed contractor holding himself out while advertising his company via Google in Pinellas County, Florida, what was the evidence specifically for an unlicensed contractor holding himself out? The phrase on the Google page claiming to be licensed and insured, it misleads the public. You know, they believe, with that phrase, they believe him to be licensed and insured to perform that work in the county, and he is not. Thank you. And the county will move this citation, even though it's in the record, as county's Exhibit 6. Already part of the record, Exhibit 6 will be admitted into evidence. I have nothing further for investigator pageant. Mr. Steiner, do you have any questions for the investigator? If you don't, we'll just start your case. Sir, can you speak into the microphone? Thank you. Jim Reeves, whatever he is, tried to skip me in line. He has no idea of me advertising the business or anything. He jumped in front of me, and I called him out, and then he looked at my shirt, and now this has all started, because he was literally cutting me in line at Home Depot. What did I advertise at Home Depot? Was I standing in the front advertising my business, or was I standing in the checkout line when Jim Reeves tried to cut in front of me and then started a problem over this? From my conversations with Mr. Reeves, he claimed that he saw your company on your T-shirt and that you were... I actually was trying to skip me in line at Home Depot. I'm not aware of that. I don't know the conversations you guys had at Home Depot. But I was not advertising my business. I wasn't in Pinellas County to do a business. I was at Home Depot buying paint. He wanted to skip me in line, and now... I mean, you're literally causing all this crap over a business I've been running for six years. I'm not advertising Pinellas. I don't even work in Pinellas County. So, I mean, I'll pay the two grand. I don't even care. But this is all because Jim Reeves got his feelings hurt at Home Depot. Okay. Do you have a question? No. I was just making it clear. I don't care. I'll pay the money. It's fine. I'm not broke. Okay. Any redirect, counsel? No, ma'am. All right. But it's just people using their authority and running around and doing shit like that. It's a joke. Anything further? No. Okay, I'm going to fine. There's a violation of Code Section 22-14, subsection 6, an issue of fining the amount of $1,000. I am going to fine. There's a violation of Code Section 22-14, sub 4, issue of fine of $1,000. You will receive a written order in the mail reflecting what I just ruled. Yes. Communications, please stop recording. Do we have anything else? No. There it is. All right. That concludes the cases that were set on the 9 o'clock docket. We have a docket that begins at 1.30 this afternoon. Are there any other county attorney matters? All right. The November 10th at 9 o'clock, code enforcement hearings are adjourned, and we will reconvene at 1.30 for the 1.30 docket. Communications, please stop recording. Good afternoon. My name is Jeff Fuller. I'm the special magistrate who's been assigned to today's special magistrate agenda, November 10, 2025. We're here on the 1.30 docket. We are here pursuant to Section 158-112 concerning appeals. And that provision provides the special magistrate shall hear and decide appeals when it is alleged there is an error in any requirement, decision, or determination made by the floodplain administrator in the administration enforcement of this chapter. Any person aggrieved by the decision may appeal to the circuit court. Any person who decides to appeal the decision with respect to any matter considered at this hearing will need a record of the proceedings and for such purposes may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The record is not provided by Pinellas County. Nicole, would you read item 12? Item number 12, Department, Floodplain, Matter, Appeal, Case Number, CCM-25-00086. Administrator, L. Foster, Owner, William Nobles. Notice address, William Nobles, 172 Annwood Road, Palm Harbor, Florida, 34685. Nobleshomeatme.com. And Gene Crossan, Division Manager, Building and Development Review Services, 440 Court Street, Clewota, Florida, 33756. G. Crossan at Pinellas.gov. And Lisa Foster, CFM, Floodplain Administrator, L.D. Foster at Pinellas.gov. And David Berrera, Esquire, Pinellas County Attorney's Office, 315 Court Street, 6th Floor, Clewota, Florida, 33756. D. Berrera at Pinellas.gov. T. Thandaway at Pinellas.gov. T. Thandaway, violation address, 172 Annwood Road, Palm Harbor, Florida, 34685. Thank you. Who's here for that case? Well, everybody that's here for that case and intends to participate, please come up to the podium. Good afternoon, Magistrate. David Berrera on behalf of the county. All right. Good afternoon. Lisa Foster. And I was kind of close. And good afternoon. I know a lot of what's going to happen now doesn't have anything to really do with sworn testimony in front of me. But anybody who's going to offer sworn testimony, I would like you to raise your right hand. Please state your name. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Since this is an appeal, we will start with the Nobles presentation, followed by the presentation of the county. So, sir, you're free to begin. Okay. I brought a few copies. The county should already have this survey from when we just started a year ago. And around November, we submitted for a permit to apply for a pool build in the back of our house here. So I have some photographs. I don't know if you have that information because I dropped it off last week. But just some photographs to kind of show the – give you an idea of what we're looking at in the backyard here. The issue that has been told to me is that FEMA has a line, a reference line drawn, which shows the boundary of the floodway, which that boundary is a 12.8 NAVD elevation. Obviously, when you look at the drawing here, there's a pond, and that 12.8 foot, there's banks for the pond. So there's different elevation. And FEMA's Map Service Center has a disclaimer that says there's a 38-foot radial margin of error. That's 76 feet total of where this line could be. And they also state that you should not just use this line on the map as sole documentation for permitting purposes and to use ground-level survey spotting to determine where the 12.8 actually is. So we did that. We created – we hired a surveying company. They came out. They put spot elevations all around. The proposed pool deck area is the shaded area in the back. And as you can see, there is a right triangle that extends past the reference floodway line. That being said, all of the area in that right triangle that is past that floodway line, all the spot elevations are above 12.8 feet NAVD, 13.1. Most are right around 13, just, you know, about 0.2, 0.3 above the 12.8. There are – when I submitted this, and the surveyor also put in here that pool deck area appears to be above elevation 12.8. So we submitted this to the county building department, and they came back and they had circled a few areas where it shows a lesser than 12.8 elevation, which is actually upland of the reference line. And those 12.8 – or there's just a couple spots that are less than. That's actually a concrete patio that we excavated out is what they marked with that. So in order – we excavated when we poured this patio back when we built the house. Sir, if you wanted to show the pictures, you can put them on the seal. Right on. Yes. Oh, okay. You can see them there in the back. Got it. All right. So, yeah, basically what we did was because we have a little fire pit area back here, and then just to make this a gradual slope, you can see how we cut into it to make this as level and as little of a slope as possible. This is another view right here that is like looking down that sidewalk, so how it's level here, but we cut into it to get down to that, like I said, so it's just a smoother transition, more wheelchair-friendly. We have some elderly people in the family. So, anyways, with that being said, that's the reason why there are some spots upland from the FEMA reference line that are actually lower, but regardless, they're still upland from that line anyways. We are not doing any fill outside. There will be a stem wall created around at the perimeter of this pool deck. We'd actually designed this in 13, 14 years ago when we built our house, and we decided to do solar panels instead of the pool, and hindsight's 20-20. Now solar panels are a lot cheaper and pools are a lot more expensive, so we should have done it back then. But anyways, so I don't know if you want that there. But then I also, so I got a surveyor to come out, or not a surveyor, but a civil engineer who came out, and he looked at the area, looked at the drawings, looked at the communication back and forth between all parties involved with the building department and myself, and we have submitted this letter as evidence. He has digitally signed it. I can get an embossed and original signature if you like, but I thought we were going to be uploading like normal anyways for permitting purposes. So it's pretty cut and dry. I mean, water doesn't go uphill. The building department was asking me to do a modeling of the whole Brooker Creek floodway and to prove that there would not be any rise to the jurisdiction at any point based on our improvements. And the letter basically states that there's no point in doing that because everything is above the 12.8 NAVD elevation anyway. So if we were doing items under the 12.8, then something, we would cause some sort of rise to the jurisdiction. However, being all above 12.8, it's impossible to, if you're at a 13 foot plus elevation, it's impossible to cause any rise to anything 12.8 or under. And he has digitally signed and sealed that letter stating that the full permit should be approved and we should move forward. So that's all I have to say about it. Pretty, seems cut and dry to me. However, I'm sure you all will have some comments. Okay. Thank you. Are you leaving here? No, you can take them. If Mr. Barrera needs them, he'll get them from you. Thank you. County may proceed. Thank you, Magistrate. I'm going to have Lisa Foster present for purposes of today. But, Magistrate, as we discussed in the beginning of these proceedings, it is nothing more than an appeal as governed by 158-112. The initial determination by the floodplain administrator was that development within the floodway is simply not permitted. And that was the underlying determination that's before the Magistrate today. The issues that they have raised and the other modifications that they're seeking, those are other steps that they can take to try and get this pool to be placed. But the original determination was this pool deck is within the floodway, therefore we're not allowing it. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to the floodplain administrator who's going to go over her presentation that she's prepared that outlines her initial determination and where we are today from the county's perspective. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. So we're here today regarding the appeal of the floodplain administrator's determination that the proposed location for the new pool to be constructed at 172 Inwood Road is located in a FEMA floodway where this type of development is not permitted. The flood hazard determination meets the criteria of the Pinellas County Code Section 158-23, which requires that FEMA data serve as the minimum basis for establishing the flood hazard. The appeal is governed, as David mentioned, by 158-112, which does state that special magistrates shall hear and decide the appeals when there's an alleged error in the floodplain administrator's determination. So this is the effective FEMA flood insurance study and subsequent flood insurance rate map, also referred to as the firm, in the area of the subject property. The floodway delineation became effective in 2003, so it was based on prior development. So this house was built in 2014, so the lot had not been developed at the time that the floodway was delineated. The location of the proposed pool and deck is within the FEMA flood zone AE within the floodway. And I just wanted to highlight what a floodway is for you. So a floodway is basically the channel and the adjacent land areas that have to be preserved in order to continue to convey the floodwaters without increasing the flood elevation on anybody else's property. If you look at the diagram, you can see the creek itself is represented in the middle, and then a little bit further out you can see the extent of the floodway, and then beyond the floodway is the entire width of the floodplain. The flood elevation line crosses all three areas, but the flow of water increases as you move towards the center of the creek. So these areas are mapped by FEMA. The flood maps show where the water is expected to flow during a flood. Generally speaking, a floodway is mapped by creating computer models that use historical precipitation and flood data, river flow rates, and land elevation information to predict where floodwaters will be the most concentrated and have the most flow during a rain event. The current FEMA floodway delineation, like I said, it went into effect in 2003, so it was based on the land elevation information prior to development of the subject lot. This is the 1995 USGS general topography, and it shows the entirety of that backyard in a natural area. The elevations on the USGS map aren't great. I'm not sure exactly what elevation data FEMA used when they delineated this floodway, but it was based on pre-development conditions. The subject property is within the floodway extent overlaid on the FEMA map and also on the survey that they did provide. It's shown on both. I put it in a circle on this survey, that area of the proposed development areas within the floodway, and then you can see the house on the left-hand side in relation to the floodway, which is the striped area. We also have an elevation certificate from when the home was built back in 2014, and the lowest adjacent grade there is 12.6, which is below the flood elevation. I was also provided this morning the application for the permit for the home being built back in 2014, and the grade in the backyard adjacent to the back of the structure was 12.45 prior to construction, also below the flood elevation, thus within the floodplain. The floodplain administrator determination is summarized here. The original plan, surveys, and supporting documentation submitted in the application clearly shows improvements crossing the floodway delineation. The FEMA delineation is comprised of the best available data for the floodway in this location. Modifying the line requires an application to FEMA through a letter of map revision process to change the flood insurance rate map. The code, 158-221, prohibits development in the floodway, so this determination would prohibit that portion of this development to be placed there. The survey notes provided several elevations that were below the FEMA-based flood elevation at 12.8 between the elevation certificate the survey provided and then the survey from the existing grade when the home was permitted. As such, the flood hazard determination is that the proposed location is within the FEMA flood zone AE and within the floodway, and neither the county nor me has the authority to amend a FEMA map. So as we sit here today, I have not seen any evidence or documentation that would invalidate the determination that that portion of the proposed pool and patio area is within the floodway. We're here before you under 158-112. There's just not an error in our decision. The proposed location is clearly in the floodway. There are processes in place, of course, to modify the FEMA maps. So a different path would need to be taken, but at this point, it is considered floodway. All right, thank you. Anything further? No. All right. I'm going to give each side an opportunity to do a closing statement where you basically tell me what you think the evidence showed and tell me what you want me to do. So I did not see where the, you said there was a survey shown, I believe it was 12.4. I received it this morning. It was in the applicant where the. And where was that taken at, that 12.4, what part of the house? Ms. Foster, can you please come up to the mic? Thank you. It was in the permit application. It looked like it was a foot or two off of the back of the structure on each corner. Where the garage is? No, behind the main structure. But sort of on the house side of the area that you're proposing the pool. Okay, because we didn't raise anything there. So I don't know. Like, was that the final survey that was done afterwards? It was a survey that was done prior to construction. So the pre-construction survey, I believe, is what it was. I just saw it this morning. I brought a copy with me. Okay. Well, I mean, I don't know. The house was built and it was approved at whatever point that was. And the 12.8, though, but based on the survey that we have today, 12.8, correct, is the boundary of the floodway? 12.8 is the base flood elevation. The floodway is a delineated area on the map that is done through H&H modeling, hydraulic and hydrologic modeling. Basically compresses it to where you would see a rise and then they draw the line there. And then the floodplain extends beyond to that. So for 12.8. The floodplain, not the floodway. Correct. So the floodway, you are within, on the line on the map, you are absolutely within that floodway. So in order to not be within that line, you would need to get a map change from FEMA, or you would need to do modeling to show that you're not going to have an impact, a no-rise, which is required federally. So that modeling for the no-rise, I mean, based on our survey, everything is above 12.8, where the proposed pool deck area is. There were elevations that were below that? That's in the, that's upland, I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you. And God bless you, because I, with the hurricanes, I've been dealing, I'm a general contractor and was dealing with them too, so, you know, that's why I was patient for a long time, but those areas that are less than 12.8 are where that concrete slab is. Not to say the elevations are irrelevant, but they're not relevant to the floodway determination, because you are within that, that area of floodway on the map. Those elevations may become relevant when you make an appeal to FEMA to change the map. That's when the elevations come into play. But as the map is, and the effective map, I do not have the authority to say you are not in the floodway. FEMA would have to change the map. So, I've been going in a circle for a year, and I've talked to people at FEMA that point me back to you and say the floodplain administrator can look at your survey, can look at the survey points, they know the 38-foot radial margin of error on that line. I mean, obviously, the pond and the banks is not the same elevation, right, for that, at least. That's not a 12.8. That line is clearly not 12.8. I would need to see the survey from prior to the map being delineated. But even... Because if any fill was brought in after that, then a floodplain analysis would have needed to be done. But this is a pond that has been there since... My family developed the neighborhood, and Ann Wood is actually my aunt, Ann Ferentino, that lives next door. These ponds have been here. I mean, we got a permit to put a land bridge here early on. But this pond, I mean, obviously, there's a line, a 12.8-foot elevation that FEMA is saying is the floodway line. The floodway line is not a 12.8-foot line. The floodplain extends beyond the floodway, which is also 12.8. And if they'll were placed after this flood map were developed... This is what they say is the floodway line. So if the fill were placed on this property after that floodway line was delineated, then you would need to go through a full modeling exercise to show that the fill that was placed on this property did not cause adverse impact. And then they would also remap it. But as the FEMA map stands right now effective, the proposed area is within the floodway. So we cannot allow development in that spot. The rest of it that's on the lane bridge side is flood plain. So if bill were brought in, you would do the pump storage and things like that to be able to accommodate it. But the piece that is on the side of the floodway cannot be done. So let me ask you, if I were to dig an area of compensatory... No, it's different because it's floodway, so it's for conveyance. So flood plain is more like rising water for storage where the compensation would work. A floodway is an area for conveyance, though. So this is where the water will be moving with some velocity when a 100-year event happens. So it's different than a regular flood plain. Okay. I guess this is the survey that I have based on what I know to be the actual elevations in actual relevance to the existing home. You were talking about a survey that was done without the placement of the home on there? Honestly, the elevation for this determination is not relevant because the FEMA map shows the location of the proposed development within the floodway. The only time the elevation becomes relevant is when you are trying to get the map updated. You're trying to get a letter of map change. And in order to do the letter of map change... Is it a letter of map change or a letter of map revision? Well, letter of map change is the overarching. There's a letter of map amendment, a letter of map revision, a letter of map revision based on fill, a letter of map revision floodway. There are several different types. But letter of map change is sort of the overarching shorthand for that. And everything that I saw on all those different variations that she just gave of the commonly known as the LOMR or LOMC is for purposes of getting your property shown not in an actual flood zone for insurance purposes. Correct? Right. Currently, that is the most common use of it. Prior to FEMA implementing a different insurance rating methodology, it was also used to change base flood elevations. It was used to change which zone you were in, to change rates, etc. So it's not always just in or out. It wasn't before anyhow. That's what FEMA tells me. And then so by doing that, that's just to tell you whether any of your property, not specific points on your property, are within a flood zone to get the, for insurance purposes. So you can tell your mortgage company, I don't need to get flood insurance after all. This is not a flood zone. Well, my whole house is in a flood zone. A little part of my driveway over here is not in a flood zone. So after going through that whole entire process, which is a very time-consuming and more expensive process, they're still going to come back and tell me that my property is within a flood zone and flood insurance is required. And all we're talking about is this corner here. Like, there is nobody that I've talked to. I've been through a lot of people at FEMA and trying to get clarification on, well, is it the LOMAR, is it the LOMC, LOMA? And everybody is, it's just been going on for over a year now. It's just, it's a constant, we'll talk to them. And then ultimately they keep coming back and saying, well, if you have ground-level surveying that shows it's above 12, everybody agrees that that line is supposed to be 12.8, but there is a 38-foot radial margin of error for the floodway, that that's the floodway boundary. Everybody at FEMA that I've talked to has agreed on that. Everything that I see in writing says that's a 12.8, in this firm map section that includes my property. Now, different parts, as you get closer to Lake Tarpon, as elevation goes down, that 12.8 changes. But for, if you look at, pull up the actual firm map, you will see it's almost right there, right behind my house, is the line that shows the 12.8 is that floodway boundary. So, that's what we're going off of for this. And, I mean, we're talking about a small corner that dips past this line, and every bit of it is above 12.8. But if you say, well, we're not going off of elevations, well, what are we going off of? A FEMA map. The effective FEMA map is the adopted map. Our code, which I referenced in the presentation, states that we cannot go lower than FEMA. Did FEMA give you any kind of written documentation? FEMA has it on their website that says, do not solely use that map for permitting purposes, that you should use ground-level surveying for permitting, which is what I did, and that there's a 38-foot radial margin of error. The lowest adjacent grade on your home is 12.6, which is below 12.8. And if fill was placed in the backyard after that FEMA map was delineated, then it will need modeling to show that you did not cause adverse impact with fill on the property. I don't know. I'm just, my house was built. I'm going off of what was built, what was approved, the final inspections, everything that was done, final surveys. I know that surveys are one thing, and then when the house is placed on that map, and, you know, you're looking at a survey that is without a house actually placed on it. I know our garage level is low, so I had to put flood vents in there. Now all that does is actually let water flood my garage. It actually won't allow the hydrostatic pressure from knocking the walls down. And the engineering report that you had, I believe it was only concluded that the home itself was outside of the floodway. That was it. It didn't say your yard was outside of the floodway. From the original engineering report from back in 2012 or so? You referenced an engineering report, so that's what I'm referencing. This is the 5th. I don't know if you guys got that or not. So I can't go based on the elevation because you're in the floodway. So this is, I don't want to say it's a moot point because this will be helpful when you do apply to FEMA to get a letter of map revision. But you'll also have to provide to FEMA documentation that no fill was placed on the property since that floodway was delineated. So those are the things that you'll need to take to FEMA to get the letter of map revision. And it's a letter of map revision for the floodway itself is what you're looking for, not for the floodplain. I get that. However, I hear what you're saying, trust me, because I've spent the last year trying to get these possible different map revisions. And FEMA says, they refer me to, that's not, don't use that line. Here it is on our website. You show this documentation to your building department and your floodplain administrator. And that's where they leave me off at. I don't have the authority to change a FEMA map. If I, if I get a letter and writing from someone at FEMA that says that you have the authority to see ground level surveying. Your lowest adjacent grade next to your house is 12.6, which is below 12.8. And the floodway line is not based on the elevation. The floodway line is based on modeling. And they basically compress it and they draw the line based on the modeling results. So it's not related to the elevation. It's, it's the place where the conveyance is faster rather than just rising water. So you can't use elevation to change a delineation of a floodway. You just can't do it. You'd have to have an H&H model. I mean, it's impossible for water to flow uphill, correct? So with a floodway, you've seen flash flooding videos and things like this. The water just goes and it's fastest in the middle of the lowest point, obviously, and then it closes it as it goes out. Right. So that floodway line is the area that needs to be conserved for that conveyance so that you don't cause a rise someplace else. They get that. You put something in it. So I can't change the floodway line on the map. You have to go to FEMA to get a letter of map change. And in order to do that, you're going to need to document that no fill was placed since that floodway was delineated. And then this will help you and your, your actual survey. Okay. I mean, everyone's told me that 12.8 is the magic number and that we need to be above that. And that's where this whole thing was designed and based upon, this is the first I've heard elevation doesn't matter news to me. So everything is done by elevation in this world. Water does not go above a certain elevation. No matter how fast it's going, it's going to move towards the lowest water levels. It's not going to go over a mountain just because a mountain is in the way. It's going to push around it and it's going to stay at that level. Yeah, there may be waves depending on what we're looking at. We're looking at North Carolina and the mountains coming down and we're looking at river rapids. This is generally a pretty flat, swampy area. So, you know, we don't have any mountains dispensing excessive water. We do have a lot of roadways and a lot of overbuilding that was permitted upland. Swamps filled in. But I don't know how else to say it. But other than I've gotten a dead end at FEMA saying that there's what I'm looking for, they don't do. And this is now you're involved in the same circle and loop. And I have hundreds, maybe not hundreds, but dozens and dozens of emails between people that I wish I had brought. I just figured this letter right here was pretty obvious that this states the facts. As I noted, that delineation was done on a 2003 map. I'm not arguing the accuracy of it. I'm saying I don't have the authority to revise a FEMA map. If you want to revise the FEMA map, you're more than welcome to do that. But I cannot do that. And right now the proposed development is within the effective FEMA floodway. Yeah, and the process of revising a FEMA map is we're talking about an enormous amount of money and process and time to come back with. We're six feet over an imaginary line that is assuming that's 12.8 and is a nice flowing line that looks dreamy. And, you know, at that point, you know, by the time years go by, all of this, my kids will be moved on. Adoption of the FEMA maps and enforcement using the FEMA maps is a bare minimum requirement for our participation in the NFIP. And that NFIP participation is what provides flood insurance to everybody in unincorporated in Ellis County at a discount, nonetheless. So it's really critical that we stay compliant with the NFIP. And to stay compliant with the NFIP, we have to comply with the FEMA maps. If we don't like the FEMA maps, we change the FEMA maps. So if you think that line is incorrect, there's a process in place to go through FEMA to change it. Okay. Even though they have FEMA tell me that she has the authority to do it. So I guess we can go round and round with this all day. Okay. It's what I'm here for, for the round and round. Anything else from the county? Just a brief summation, magistrate. Okay. Magistrate, so the underlying determination was pursuant to 158-221, development not permitted in floodways, isolated wetlands, and preservation areas. Specifically, no development is authorized within the 100-year floodway or the 25-year floodway, isolated wetlands, or environmentally sensitive areas that are designated as preservation areas on the future land use map adopted by the county, except as follows. And there's a couple exceptions that would be used in other instances. But, magistrate, the question before you today is whether or not the floodplain administrator's determination that the proposed development was in the floodway and therefore not allowed is what is on appeal, and the county therefore believes that at this time, no new evidence has been provided to show that the proposed development is outside of the floodway. Therefore, we must be bound by 158-221 and not permit development within the floodway. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I'm going to take this matter under advisement, and I will do a written order, and I don't know how quick Caroline will be, but I'll have the written order done by the end of the week. If she takes two more weeks to send it to everybody, that's on her. Oh. Thank you, magistrate. All right. That concludes the November 10th special magistrate hearings. Are there any other county attorney matters? I have nothing else for you, magistrate. All right. Hearing will be adjourned. Communications, please stop recording.