Code Compliance Hearings

>> Case number 2020. My recollection top that was put up without a permit. Correct case. We're talking about. We found violation. point time and turn it over to city. Tell me what's going on. >> I talked to Gary Bill and Gary Bell wanted some changes to the plans. So we had what he wanted to the plan to transmittal. >> With just one 2 on this. >> At this time, mean, the order on this back in April yesterday was the day that the sub middle as Putin from Mr. Desperate. I think this is a very slow-moving process. I don't think the city wants to give any further time, but that position is to get compliance because that hasn't been reviewed, I don't know what the outstanding issues are with the application. If the city were to allow additional time for compliance, it would have to be a very short period of time. I guess I would defer to the city. How long does it usually take Eng for review of comments that are submitted? Then days. So I would say the city would allow additional time for compliance, but no more than 20 days. concerned there's a 10 day review period. If there are additional comments and we're just gonna keep going down this road. So additional 10 days if it's not review, not compliant within so 20's of additional 20 days. That's not comply within 20 days, then we would ask for $250 fine. Let's take the regional administrative cost of the city. And administrative costs. Yes, Madam >> Well, as Mr, Desperate has just. Pointed out to me, which also wear the of the city can come back with comments. >> that. >> The city can come back with comments to the latest trends medal. And it would be out of my clients hands. Well, how my client response to those comments and timeliness and what your response. My client can anticipate weather, Mr. Just can't participate. Whether the city is going to come back with more comments relative to the to the application for the permit. We would ask would considering that we can anticipate what the city's going to do with regard to this. That that Mr. Desperate to be put on strict timeline with regard to his response to any further inquiries. So that if they go ahead and they say, listen, we need action. We need why that he needs to respond within. Let's say. 10 business days. And so did so he needs to keep the ball rolling. I think setting up bright line saying if he doesn't get the permit by data acts, then you start getting find. That presupposes that it's on his control and it's not obviously Dow. It's it's a two-way street. And this stage, he's he's submitted what admittedly. It was. De la Torre is his response is submission of the of the transmittal. And I know he's got a lot of in the air. We all do. But the bottom line is he needs to keep it going. He needs to keep the. And so what we would ask instead is that he be? Circumscribed to period of time. Limited period of time in which to satisfy any additional requests. To the extent that he hasn't. Met those criteria, then I would ask for the year on a dual headed to reconsider the possible imposition of fine. But to have it simply as a an automatic me, if he doesn't have a bright line it does permit his hands in the next 20 days or 10 days, he starts getting find that really not it's not fair because it doesn't. It doesn't anticipate. What the city may ask for with regard to additional requirements. remind you, your honor that the city was. Initially resisting his ability to pull this permit is an owner permit and they were insisting that there had to be a contractor notwithstanding the fact that he was entitled as a homeowner, own permit considering that the amount of workers at stake and so he was going back and forth with regard to that condition. And now I don't know what additional requirements the city are going to have. We'll have long as he keeps it moving forward and we don't have to wait 2 months to know now he's he's he supplied. I think that that that would be that would be consistent with your honor's expectations. We're not going to have another flamingo here were, you know, it takes 15 years get a co on the house. don't believe that he's trying. I don't believe that Mr. Desperate is intentionally trying I think it was inadvertent inadvertent omission on his part. So I would ask. Instead we would go ahead and we would. Make it very clear that any response he received from the city that request more information that he needs to respond. And a timely basis. And we could set the timely basis 10 days. Barring, of requests that. Surpassed 10 days like I don't know, maybe the request and an engineer. No intention mention engineer plans which may take a month or something of that nature. But barring something like that, something that's within his control dove to to provide within short period time. We would ask that that be the next step. >> And I have additional information. Yes. 10 days. And I and I think to speak to the gravity of the situation. There's 2 things. One, we wouldn't be here. Mrs Burke had pulled the permit before he started work on it. So again, we regarding compliance is not meant to be punitive, but it's all. So if you had done properly the first time we would never have been here in the first place. The second is we do have concerned neighbors and I believe we have something a letter to be read into the record that goes to the gravity of the situation. in this particular I guess we don't need to read it. If you want to read it. We'd like to submit it into the record. >> We see the entire course. Ponds. Could we see the entire course ones? Please. >> Thank you. To minus was submitted before the prior hearing which was supposed to take place on July 31st and then was continued to today's state. All right. Here's here's. >> We address this permit issue back in April. 21st. ? It didn't get done. Same issue. August 20th. The information that requested. When did that when a request that information. >> Michaud fractions letter was sent out on May. 26. A 26. So on day, 26, that was when the additional for. August 20th. As to the issue, city has additional comment. What I'm going to do is it's not going to be 20 days, 30 days. That will give you ample opportunity. rest, those additional comment. 30 days from today. Because the amount. The running fine is going to happen Flores. What are your what is your recommendation the running? >> One second You come back you. And at the time find fine, like that's committees this week, 3, 6, months for from. >> everything. National dog. One how long it takes to get a permit? 36 today. I'm sorry, 3 to 6 months. >> You know, I if I could just go ahead and address I don't, I don't mean to 2 Dory response to your question. Mr. Desperate bring up an issue that I think he wants to dressed too. To your honor before we would get the stage of the fine just to consider this Desperate explained to be that the National Dog Association read the Region, Regional Dog Association contract on Trucks Association. The DOT Contractors Association estimates that the average period of time for the issuance of a permit. permit is 3 to 6 months. I know that he submitted the DOT the application the beginning of April, I believe was the beginning of April. You submitted the application. He does remember the exact date pull-up. See the city knows winning provided. And Italy where within going back in. >> Yeah, I was going to for to the city, but Biden estimation doc permits are being issued within 30 days. Maximum. They're saying within 30 minutes. Thank so. It's sent to 5 desperate to get this done. >> Well, we're just we're not talking about whether there's going to be running fine. We're now talking about the amount. >> 30 days. >> before. This for them. asking asking would be on fun set of eyes you are asking for to vendor news. I can't perform the city. can make it a million dollars a day. >> contrast go in city. >> think we we would ask for we would ask for We would ask that it. Start lower amount. And then as his noncompliance continues, that have escalated. So we would respectfully request known opening daily fine of of $5200. So and then from there, if he doesn't respond within the next 30 days, that would escalate. So we would ask for and I collating fight to, of course, encourage, you and that's, of course, assuming that. This is within his control and he simply is responding. So we would ask started lower level. >> I agree with city. just voting for Mitt. He has an option. You can take to knock out. process all over again. >> Yes, your I understand. although I'm not sure he can actually remove it without the permit as well. So I don't know if he would be in a position to do that. But >> when I called diligent live election towns. Get this permit and there been some Have been his control. I was might have been different. However. August 20th to get the corrections which we have a hearing on August. 21st. >> So pursuant to Chapter one, 62 in the city's code Mares one 62 to a large degree for initial violations. It's a maximum of $250 a day. you can do anything in between from 0 to $250 a day. There is no provision for any type of an escalating find. The reason that the city is asking for the $250 days because of the delay because of the concerns. You know, we are kind of well into hurricane season here, but we still are getting active storms that should be quiet. Hurricane season. But with active storms who knows what the condition of the dock is. It's not properly permitted. So because those concerns we are actually asking for the maximum amount of $250 a day. I understand Mr. Suarez as concerns on the back into that there may be ways to alleviate or do lean reduction in the future. But at this point, that is reason that we're asking for the full 2.50, but percent one 62, it just has to be a set find running daily until the property comes into compliance and how he complies, as your honor has mentioned, it's completely up to him. >> My claim would like to go unaddressed commissioner fossil. Pilings and replaced and our private can now approaches a marina. >> We just had that done and doesn't require a permit. We're talking 2 years since a storm. Actually 3 years since a storm. >> April, 21, he addressed the issue. Period of time to get. Now sitting here August. 21. August, 20th. There's no reason for the delay. And so as a consequence. 30 days to get his permit. together. The city does get its job done. Let's say that 30 days from now there's been no response. Bring it back before me. We'll talk about. We're not going to continue to push down the road. There's a deadline. deadline 30 days from now to get all of this taken care of. not done in 30 days. You're going start locking in $150 a day. 5. >> asked to. Imposed a fine 30 days from the date that the city responds to the latest trends middle as opposed to 30 days from today. That way. If the city takes 10 days. Okay. I think that's fair. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. >> Okay. So 30 days from the date. Anything else on this particular? 2026, here. >> Now, for more on your own, nothing from the city. All right. >> Now let's move on to the 25 25 South Trail. violation had occurred. What's happened here? >> From my understanding, I'll defer to Miss Kennedy. But my understanding, I don't think a lot has happened here. Correct. There's been no permit application received for the expansion of the >> of the bar area. We have no permits applied for. >> Gone are in fact in that. Okay that I think there's 2 things here. One is The order that was entered with regard to stipulations of the violation was pertaining to the awning. And so is with connection with that. So think re. Repackaging it as some kind of issue regarding a footprint of a of bar or the like and not specifically stating that we're talking about that on in that overhang. That's what we're talking about. My understanding from. My understanding from Mr. Desperate does not impact. He has submitted an application. Albeit. Hardly I believe it was It was. August 20th run you have the the I think I can read into the record, the application number, but it was submitted yesterday. It's not a coincidence that was at the same time that he provide the trans middle relative to the dock. So he did those 2 at the same time I will say that again. I was a no mission. It was an oversight on his part lots of in the air and including significant litigation that we are engaged in and with the upcoming hearing. I asked for a status and prod him to, of course, get things moving. So he responded. So you in the so it was taken. >> And we're just doing right now on the issue cerny. >> No, I don't realize like Your contract. The contractor. >> Much like the the previous case that was just heard in. This wouldn't have been an issue. But for respondent constructing the awning without first getting a permit or site plan review, whatever required from the city. Again, the awning could have been taken down. I believe that was actually discussed at a previous hearing. this has been ongoing for quite some time. So the city would just ask to find that there is a violation now that there's been permit submitted to allow what permit reviews It was just received yesterday. So it still needs to reviewed some of spear of it. So. To be generous, I think the city would ask 4. 30 days and to secure the necessary approvals from the city or to remove the awning. And then impose a fine of $250 a day again for for the basis that this has been lingering for quite some time. And there's clearly not been a good faith effort to comply with the previous match with matched its previous order on something that was a stipulated violation. >> Considering that this is this is the initial. Application has been submitted Mr. That Spurs not received the initial comments. What I would ask instead of 30 days would be 60 days. So that you could you you can suppliers to plant any and he requested. Corrections that the city May may impose and if request additional corrections that it comes back, Mr. De as indicated to me that he's draftsman is still has been L uses an in-house draftsman. This individual is being treated for cancer right now. And so he's not been available in the office to go ahead and to prepare. It's been difficult for him to go and prepare. He hasn't made other accommodations with outside contractors. He obligation. And I I recognize that the delay from one, the initial stipulation went to the days and several months. And so I'm not gonna make an argument relative to. The fact that tardy, it's obviously tourney and it >> Mike, don't know if I can really make an argument relative to it and having then. That play was necessarily good faith, putting aside the dress, musicians, all I would ask for would be similar to the dock situation and considering the gravity of the situation that's also a factor to be made here. >> you can take Yeah, people. >> The And if you can do that without the permit, if you can go and you can actually dismantle it without the permit without having any issues, then he has he would have 30 days to avoid any issue. We would ask. If we could make considering its initial application, if we could have 60 days. But if if we could also have. Given the gravity of what we're talking about, which is we're talking about little still providing that's not accessible to the public. And and doesn't pose a danger to the to the to the public, the safety of the public. We would ask for a lesser fine. We would ask for a fine of $1500 if we can meet somewhere in the middle relative to that. But if we could give them a little extra additional time to actually pull how department permit poll. >> Here's what I'm going As with dog. >> not be here. But fact it. It was going to be a very simple matter of getting or event. That has not been done. And the application for the permit was not full. Wisconsin Yes. I'm going to if 45 days. Yeah, 45 days. He doesn't have a permit that. On it that are gone. dollar running fine. $50 running 5 star 45 days from today. >> I ask your honor. We can go ahead. We could haven't consistent with. With regard to the period running from when the city responds with middle. >> It was already in process. Permit was applied for. Well, yesterday. I'm not going to reward him killing. You know, we're not being diligent. Attempting to get permit. Ashley Sense. not like a boat dock. Easily removed. >> should on. >> I've had an opportunity to go through, have listened to the hearing transcript. So what I'm going to do right now is repeat for you what I understand. Testimony was. And that had to do with what Prince ultimately I think more to do with the ongoing. And anything else. So that on he's been disposed Now. The question Of the jungle either way? Is this a permitted use of jungle? Either way? I understand that there was a change in the ordinance. Pryor definition of a nightclub. Don't we? Wicker license. am so. Ashton's that I have. received. permit. >> this Telford is your phone ringing part of 5 used to that tone. County. my I apologize. >> It's probably somebody trying to come out trying to sell me a and you can refer him to Mr. Desperate. >> It's alright. We've got a new roof. >> position, I understand that. Turning particular activity, it was associated with the property be used as a hotel motel. That's correct. And property is no longer a hotel motel. And so as a result, use is not appropriate. Over to the city. Arise. For me what you're looking for, the issues are and I'm going turn it over to us. >> So I think that that there are a couple different issues here. The violations that were set forth where for violation of operating a nightclub, contrary to the city's code of ordinances. There was some argument at the last hearing with regard to whether this constituted a night club or a bar. If it did constitute a bar, it would have to be a permitted accessory use, which would be an accessory use to a hotel or motel use. But based on the evidence in the investigation that the city has done, it does not appear that the motel or hotel is operating at all, which means regardless of its a nightclub or if it's a bar, it's not a permitted accessory use as there is no permitted primary use on the property. >> there. >> I believe we have some evidence that shows that the motel hotel that is associated with the bar or nightclub use has. Is no longer operational. >> And there >> yeah, I don't want to go in and want to cut her off. I just want to go ahead make an objection to the reduction of any evidence prior to hearing our response. I see the city's winding up its computer to go ahead to submit. >> And that's fair. And so and so I will wait on evident submission. >> She she's she's welcome to make her argument. But we would have we would. certainly don't want to step on her. Her argument relative to this, but I would like to have an opportunity respond prior to proceeding regard to whatever like to do. >> I think that will take it. Everybody's an opportunity Opening. >> And at the last hearing that a magistrate you asked us to submit and any written requests or written statement, a statement of use type of a scenario to provide you with the background on on the positions. So the current use of the property and the city's position, I won't run down what was previously submitted, but we would like to go ahead and enter that when it is time to enter evidence that has been provided to all parties. But and at this point, whether there Any type of primaries that could port a secondary uses. The issue. The city contends that there is not whether it is operating as a nightclub. The city contends that it is operating as a night club. If there is a primary use the operations, a nightclub is not legally conforming. And and that if it is operating as a bar cannot do so without the permitted primary use and he's also not legally conforming. >> the outset, your honor. I'm gonna go back to April. 21st not to the last. thank you. So at the out your mom and go back to April, 21st, not the last hearing, but prior to that at the last hearing at the last hearing subsequently, which the case presented by the city. That the city's rested. The city has rested its case. It's clear on the record, the timing of it was 4 hours and 30 minutes into that that matter, they present their witnesses. They said they had no more witnesses. They rested their case. So we would object to the city that were respondent it respondent's case to present and there was increase to weather. We had any witnesses that we wish to present. And we said, yes, we have several witnesses to present. So at the outset, we would object to the city allowed to go ahead and to reopen their case and to present new evidence since they've already rested its number one. So we we would make an objective standard objection to them to be able to go ahead and to re percent. It's one thing to go ahead. Maybe have a rebuttal witness or what have you any kind evidence that we would submit that be allowed to reopen their case. And in this case, especially to expand the scope of the citation. We believe that is it's a violation of basic due process that Mr Despres entitled to he received and notice of violation. That was circumscribed to the issue of of weather. The cabana was operating a nightclub illegally. It did not address the issue of of of the allegations relative the hotel allegedly being closed. In fact, the evidence that have been reduced by by the city was to the effect that there had been confirmations previously regard to it operating as a hotel that that was not an issue. That was not an issue. It was never raised. And the the citation if so we would object to the expansion of the scope of that. I realize. At the last hearing on the 21st of April where we left off. We're looking at the code from 2022, ordinance from 2022. and that ordinance. The respondent had before comp has license. That's what ordinance provides. If I if the it changed substantially, knowledge in 2023, but in 2022, the ordinance provided. The respondent had a 4 cop S license. Then it was deemed to be accessory use. A nightclub would be deemed to be an accessory use. and that was the only issue that was outstanding. And the reason that we had continuance and this and whether it was a continuous that was it was requested and granted in good faith is another issue. What once was submitted to the court was that was that. Respondent presented proffered a license that was effective from 2 days prior to the hearing. These licenses are renewed an annual basis. But the license also made clear that it goes back to the hotel or motel uses from 2002. So Mr. Desperate had presented and proffered a license that went from April of 2026. Forward. So the question was, well, did he have a 4 cop as slices? That's what the ordinance provides. The orders doesn't say. Well, you have to have before cop has licenses and you have to have this and that it's specifically with regards the for cop as license. Now the city is trying to go behind and try and say, well, we don't know if he operates a hotel and he shouldn't be able to get a 4 compass license. We have a 4 contests license. The city does not have jurisdiction to to litigate whether or not that license was lawfully issued by the state of Florida. If the division, division State of Florida wishes to go ahead and to initiate proceedings, to revoke it based upon some allege closure of the hotel, which we dispute. And appropriate time in the appropriate form. We would go ahead and we would argue that the merits. That that would be appropriate. We don't believe that it's this is not the right time. And this is not the right place to go ahead and address those issues. If the city wants to go ahead and if they want to come back and say, you know, you're not tell so you shouldn't be going ahead and having a bar operating there, then we would invite them to go ahead and to dismiss this, this notice of violation and they want when they want file, they're walking refile more going. We'll come back. But to go ahead and essentially ambush on saying, well, we want to go ahead. We want reopen our case and we want to go we want to put improve and we want you have to assume the burden. But you can prove that, in fact, the hotel's operational is we didn't even receive. We never received proper notice of that. It was never put in the memorandum that the city had proffered that they wish to do that. They went ahead and they said that they had done some additional investigation and they had some reason to that that there that the hotel was closed. I'm going to presume that's was somebody looking on the Internet and seeing that some some former employees, Yelp accounts as it was closed. Now. Now the allegations that were sent a memorandum don't conform to a notice of violation. The request from the city was not to go ahead and to to be able to reopen their case. We haven't we object to any attempt to go behind the curtain to start addressing that issue. We don't believe that's what we're here for today. What we're here for today, my understanding, as for the defense for the respondent, case with regard to the issue of whether it has a 4 cop as license and whether it's entitled 2, whether it's entitled to rely on the 2022. ordinance, which provides that 8 the holder of a for cop has licenses deemed not to have. exemption to the nightclub prohibition. That's what we're here about today. We're not here with regard to a referendum on whether my client actually has a hotel and then a balancing test between primary accessory uses. It's it's it's appropriate expansion of the notice of violation that after the closing of their case that we would object So. That would be our response relative to city's request. Mr. Desperate has a 4 cop has license. He has had that license since 2002. present permits. It does permit a liquor license with regard to a bar. It does not. I I I'm not talking about hotels, motels. >> Whether that line. Mr. Desperate operate a ball. >> Let me go ahead. Let me let me. >> Let me qualify my response. So we're clear. This liquor license was obtained. Because the transfer from a previous owner going back to 1958 license with initially obtained in 1958. and it was a transfer grandfathering of that license over the transfer of that license over based on the prior standards. Mr desperate applied for replied for the transfer that license in 2002 before cop Ask is a special license. That is up. meant to the operation of the hotel motel. Has nothing to do with operation of a restaurant. Nothing to do with it. We have inspection report from the division back going back to 2022, section regarding restaurants actually has written not applicable. So the liquor license allows him to sell independent of whether they have food. If you want to sort food, you can serve food. He's chose not to serve food. It's a red herring. Any suggestion that, in fact, it's a requirement to do so. What he has to have is a hotel. The issue of whether or not Mr Desperate has a hotel was not raised in their notice of violation. It was raised informal status memorandum relative just step statement of use. It was not raise a notice of violation. We were not given any evidence that would substantiate We're and vague speculative. Onions that were that were being suggested in this memorandum. So. So that that would be our position relative to the 4 contests license of your your your why. >> That license on. Is also is association with having a hotel or motel. There is no hotel or motel. There's liquor license still prevent the operation of that far. >> Respectfully on and question of whether Michael, there's there's the evidence is Henry about it. What's been proffered already? My client has a valid at Fort Cobb as slices. I understand what my response would be. That to the extent that there actually is no operational hotel if the hotel, in fact, is not operating. And I believe that the utilization of the 4 contests license would go along with We go out. I don't believe, although there's an argument to be made that it could have been grandfathered in. I don't believe, however, that the for cop has license allows one to operate a barn independent of having a hotel. The hotel must exist in order for the for calm as license to be a part. And I don't think that any amount of grandfathering would change that because that was such. was the standard back in 1958. That was the standard back in 2002. So in response to your question, I do believe that a hotel motel must actually be open and operating in order to go ahead. And for that license to be valid. >> Dual of these mice. this automatic things similar Onsted exemption? Where they send out a You know, X number of dollars for the renewal of your life. >> No, your honor. My understanding is that inspection required to be performed every single year. And in fact, an inspection was performed as last year as previous year for this immediate proceeding license and it was approved. So inspections are performed by the state. It's not as if they just go and say here, take your license and good luck and never come back. Inspection was performed. Representative. There was an approval. >> I get out of work or not do in evidence here. I'm just trying get the lay of the land. >> You want check your honor. The the state of Florida division of hotels and restaurants does a lodging inspection report? And if I will go ahead. No proffered your honor. Okay. I argue that. Yes. So so what? What became very well, you we're not going to want to go conference with the we actually don't want to go ahead. it was we don't we don't believe that it's appropriate to go ahead and argues, but in response to your honor's questions. Well. >> Talks about I quote here. What is the principal use? WOW says. >> We would take the position that. Principal use is in this instance, a bar separate from a nightclub. A restaurant dining room or similar establishment. Which holds the for complications not talking town. We're talking about this instance. The bar function. There's if I'm a year on him. This is talking about the 4 com. This is not talking about the 4 contests before compass are are the 4 counts are. Principal use. >> Is a flaw. It is. where or similar average providing more refreshed. >> Yes, at the timing. >> Freshman for talking about now. >> If I may, your honor, if if I >> Let's look at this. Let's look at this. definition. nightclub, any restaurant dining room bar or similar stylish Mont providing food, refreshments. And that just jump to. But has to be providing one of the 2 which holds the 4 cop liquor license from the State Department of Business Regulation, division Alcoholic Beverages. So this is a sentence which is talking for cop license. Respectfully, no, you're on. Provided. However, the second sentence would be nullified to the extent that we it would it would it would be rendered meaningless to the extent that we would interpret the 4 cop to include the 4 top as and that's X would be meeting with there being no reason have it. Our position and that in fact, there are there there's a 4 cop has license that does not have a designation of SRS, Rx. That sentence is referring to a former cop liquor license. No, for not not referring to 4 Cup S before Cup SR. 44 cop as our next liquor license. It's referring a playing for cop liquor license for public relations that somebody comes in up the street goes and says we want to go ahead and we want to open up a bar. We're getting a 4 cop. It's a function of population right there. Estas. This there's that nation is a specialty designation. >> In which the license is up to the operation of hotel motel. I'm sorry, your honor that. >> I S are no longer exists. Yeah, I don't. I don't have the I don't that's >> no SRX. No longer exist. So we have Sfs s Spx H sale spx as Cx an SEC are the CFP doesn't nations that can be found at Dbpr as website. >> Our position, your honor is that the second sentence is a A couple, not the first sentence. Second second sentence is applicable. And in this instance and there's no qualification, a requirement of serving food or refreshments. And it simply requires that the establishment holds a 4 cop liquor license with one of those designations. And if it if we present that that license, which we have, which has been renewed over the last 24 years. Your honor over the last 24 years as my client's been an owner. As long as he has that designation, then. Its deemed to be an accessory use to the principal use. And it's not a night club. So its its excluded from the definition of a nightclub. That would be our position >> I'm trying to wrap my. Where everybody's. question that I is that. What is the principle views? need to be a principle used reviews. >> If it's considered an accessory, use, then yes, there needs to be a principal use and it must be the then it says it shall be deemed an accessories to the principal use and not a night club. So it's operating as a nightclub. It must serve food which this by admission does they do not serve food? So if it's operating as a nightclub, then its an impermissible use in zoning district. If it's operating as an accessory use and not considered a nightclub, then it has to have a properly permitted. Principal use. And again, these are all designated in 2022, so part of this is an expansion of what might have been a properly permitted accessory use the city's position is that there is no primaries and I understand Mr. Suarez, this point, I have arguments to what he brought up before was regarded the presentation of additional evidence. Accent, cetera. but there must be a I properly permitted. Principal use in order to establish the secondary use and there cannot be. And if there is there still cannot be in any expansion of that without coming to the city in asking for minor May channel major conditional site plan. And so the city's position is that there has been expansion of that use and therefore, there was required to have come through the city in order to have that properly permitted. So either there is no permitted use, know primitive primaries to establish the secondary issues. There is the use is no longer permitted or that if the expansion the use is permitted, it must have been done for the city and that expansion of the use is not permitted. I think that made sense. >> But maybe not the most starkly drawn. I may just simply make it respond regard to comments. >> Pretty much going to be educating me. Legal positions. I'm going make decisions. On the arguments that may. >> First off, with regard to the issue of properly permitted license. That is not an issue that has not been put notice of violation does not talk about it properly permitted license with regard to primary principal or principal or accessory use. It hasn't been raised. The only issue was are you operating a nightclub when you're not allowed to operate a nightclub. That's the only issue that was here wasn't have a properly permitted use relative to a hotel or regard to a bar that hasn't been raised. Up until today. It was the what we received was some general obligations in a memorandum after the close of their evidence. And without a request to go ahead and to mend their their notice of violation. And so without that specific allegations are properly made, the conform to the requirements of notice violation. Second thing is that. They're also on the nose violation was no allegations relative an expansion. And so we don't have even in that memorandum, as I as I recall from the reading the memorandum, I saw nothing in that memorandum, talked about an expansion of use. And nothing in the notice of violation talks about an expansion of use. So we we're you know, this these new allegations that while they've they've gone ahead, may be expanded their use. It's This. This is this fall's this false completely outside the scope of what they had brought as a notice of violation, what they presented their case in chief up to the closure case and with regard to the interviews in their memorandum. So this is an issue which and frankly is is being brought for the first time if the city wants to go ahead and city wants to make make make those allegations of the believe that in fact, the principal use is not. Properly licensed. Then there certainly within their their ride to go ahead and to file a notice violation accordingly. And then we can go ahead and then we'll be able to defend on the merits. But but we haven't been given notice of any of that prior to today that and that there's this, the expansion now that we have to deal with in addition to allegations which I may add or entirely unfounded with regard to the closure of the hotel, the hotel as an opening. we would respectfully object any attempt to go ahead to reopen this, to expand this. the city wants to go ahead of city wants to dismiss these current proceedings, wants to can see that. In fact, we for calm as license. Then then and that and that it's deemed to be an accessory use. If they want to go, can see that fine. If they don't want to can see that, then we put on our case with regard to the 4 contests license. But these other issues they were never raise. They were never framed. >> With all due respect, Madam Magistrate, the notice of violation. And your previous order, which details those notices of violation. Specifically raise these issues. It talks about nonconforming section zoning code Section 5 dash 1, 0, for 3 nonconforming use as a non-conforming use shall not be expanded. North shell nonconforming use be enlarged by additions. The structure and which the nonconforming use is located or the occupation of additional land. I'm determined zoning code 5 dash 1, 0, to be 7 hotels and motels and their accessories structures existing are pretty. I mean, it goes into all of the things that we're talking about the last time that we had a hearing on the matter back in April, the issue was whether or not this was considered a nightclub or not. And then the issue of the force up S license was raised at that time. The city did properly ask for continuance, which was granted in order to go ahead and brief the issue on that on that while doing so and getting together evidence, it came to the attention that the hotel was no longer in operation, whether its license or not done by Dbpr is is not the city's concern and is and is not necessarily pertinent to the zoning code. It's whether or not it's operationally used in that manner. And we have evidence to more than suggest that it's no longer which would then lead to the issue of whether or not it's permitted primary or excess or use, which is again in the violation of zoning code 7 dash 904, teen, a non residential accessory use is building and structures talking an excess or use to your hotel or motel use while I appreciate Mr. Suarez's arguments, this is not a court of law. This is a quasi judicial proceeding. Its administrative it is governed by chapter one. 62, the formal rules of evidence do not apply and agreement with Mr. Suarez, fundamental fairness and due process exist due process in this context is notification of the the the violations which again, I've already read and an opportunity to be heard. This is the opportunity to be heard and there's no closure of evidence. There is no no bar to reopening it as administrative proceeding. It is something that is done quite frequently, actually. And and through the course of it to make sure that we get it right as the other part of the due process scenario is an imposition of a fine and understanding what that looks like. So with that being said, I respectfully Mr. Suarez, his position that the city does not have the opportunity to reopen its quote, case and set forth new evidence in order to make a determination as to whether there is a proof of in proper accessory use that if it is considered accessory use with the establishment of a force, you peace asked designation license. There would have to be a principal use. That is the hotel-motel use. If that cannot be established and it is not an excess or use, it is in fact, a night club and is no longer allowed to operate. As by admission, there's no food being served and so. But with all due respect, I think the city has the responsibility to put additional evidence based on investigation that has been done. For a statement of uses, which was one which the order was from the match. It was that we were to submitted and then Mr. Suarez was to respond with their position. We never got anything back on that. So again. The city is here to present evidence for its position and to get the magistrate sufficient information to find if there is or is not a violation, understanding that the magistrate is attempting to figure out the zoning code. I understand that because I had to go through that myself. it is pertinent and it has been on notice to the respondent that a primary use is required. So whether or not there is a permitted primary use on that property is. Inherent to the determination as to whether or not there's a nightclub or if this is an accessory use on the property. >> I mean, make just one comment your one limited comment. The allegation or the argument was made the city that this was a non-conforming use and fact I simply want to go ahead and bring to the attention of the. Of the city section 5 dash 102 vested rights for lawful existing uses and structures. This cabana has been open since 1958. Does fall within subsection 7 hotels and motels and accessory uses and structures existing are approved by existing or approved by January. Second, 1999, on the Sony lot somewhere which located arm for 5, 6, The multiple family dwelling about that. That's really the second sentence is irrelevant. But the that item is that the inclusion of hotels and motels and their excess reuse the structures existing as of 1999 is under the section. That makes clear that it shall not be deemed a non-conforming shall be deemed to lawfully exist in conformity with the regulations shall be allowed to continue as a lawful existing user structure. You we would we would respectfully. Objecting disagreed the characterization, the argument of the city that this is a non-conforming use. This is conforming use. It's a lawful, existing conforming use. And structure. Based upon that section. >> I've heard both of your arguments. sent out July 22nd. I'm assuming that war asked copies. What the issues are and reference. First of all, there was notification. process has you have process. You a month to take a look at this and decide what you all want have to present evidence on to revive. Cities. Allegations. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. It and it is a little bit more flexible and it would be in circuit court. However, even in circuit court. If justice required, I would in the process preventing an amendment. To the complaint. To the extent that sonseeahray. So to all of the issues. I tend to conduct hearings. I'm going to let city present all of it. I'm going to let you percent all of Europe. This is a highly technical issues. I have reviewed the for hours transcript. I have listened to everybody. I have reviewed the code what I'm going to ask at the end of this hearing is that both of you within 10 days. memorandum with citations as to what your positions are and what you want me to do. a question that I have is that. 2022 ordinance. Seems to be pivotal. And I need. I your argument as to how I should interpret ordinance. Other question I has to do with the fact. Liquor license and the fact that there was inspection related to the liquor license. Look for a license with an inspection. How much weight, Could I get that? If there's been an inspection, they found hotel use still, like it that way. You might not get that way. And I'm love the attorneys address. That issue. What I'm going to do I'm going allow the city present the evidence. I'm going to love you to present all of the evidence. If you need additional time, war as we gather more evidence, I will grant that. But I think that everybody's on notice is what we're doing today. Want to get all of this out and get all of this on the record. So that I could make an informed decision. let the city go forward. Thank you, Madam. >> city would like committee the city would like to submit into evidence some of the recent Internet investigation that it's time to determine that the cabana in the motel hotel use itself is no longer operational. And these are photos from the cabana. And of course, all of these are of the bar area or the nightclub area as it There is Again. Go on to Yelp. You'll see that Yelpers report. This location has closed as far as the actual cabana in it lists as a hotel, not as the bar absolutely. And so this is just the photographic evidence that the city was submitting with regard to the closure of of the actual hotel motel. To do is let me as a segue so that you can hear no Okay. And then the city going to call its first witness. So There can be testimony on the record with regard to the observations of the use of the hotel. OK? >> We're up. Yeah, I notice. >> This is a this is a Yelp review Web site of a hotel, the command Sarasota, Florida. This same a indication was on MapQuest, which I understand is a blast from the past. But similar reports on the Internet indicate that the cabana and not the jungle Hideaway Bar nightclub, but that could be an in itself is no longer open. It is permanently closed. The for the record. >> We'll see a panic director development services. >> tell the truth, the whole Nothing. And thank you >> so previously, the site did have a sign for the Cabana, a motel hotel, but some vacancy information that site is no longer there. There's no signage for any kind of motel hotel on the site. Additionally, the the units have some individual personal belongings. It seems like more of a use of multi-family. It looks like with no indication of how to book a hotel. We couldn't find anywhere online or on site on how to book a hotel room. And the signage. Again, like I there's the signage now is only for the nightclub are use not for the hotel motel or get previously was. >> Any questions. >> But I don't know she's finished with her examinations. We are that. That's it. Okay. well we go back. >> I commute. No, no, no, no, no. We're not doing that. No, no, no. No comments Friday. You're going to testify have come up here morning. >> Can we go back to Yelp? But, you know, bad. Like, you know, provision, okay. >> were you the person who >> researches and found this this Yelp page. >> It was me my staff. Yes. Okay. >> do you the did you read >> the reviews of the yelpers or did you review the information from those yelpers that reported the location closed. >> I can't recall we can take a look at it. I don't what you're looking at 9. I'm asking if prior to coming in and giving your testimony based on this individual case. Did you review any of the reviews It says they're 60 reviews, their and their 4.3. Did you review those reviews? I can't recall. Okay. You went ahead and you >> is there any other information on this page that would with that? Substantiate? That claim that statement there. That Yelpers report, the location is closed. >> All the pictures are of the new bar nightclub. There's no pictures of the hotel motel. >> Which does make it seem like they're that uses no longer there. >> Well, I see that there's I see that there's 23 pictures and you started showing some pictures. I'm seeing pictures of the greasy on three-point the pictures. So tell me about the Yelp I use the application before, but I'm not so familiar without shoes. >> Is this is this said driven by by the business itself. Do you know if Yelped, you know, if the Yelp is actually that listing that information was that the responsibility of and set a buy the business? Can you can you state affirmatively that in fact that set up by the business? No, I don't know. You don't OK? this could have been set up by. An individual that has no employment relationship with the company. that correct? I don't know. You don't know. You don't have it. You know, so you don't know. Actually. Who said that information up. Now testified about. He testified about. objects or personal objects that signage you want to add. You testified about signage and that that you didn't see any signage there for the hotel. I'm gathering that somebody would have made inspection of the of the property. One of the inspection take place. >> Chemical the dates since this has been going on. There's been quite a few drive-bys and inspections. I don't know the dates off okay. So the are you the person who made these inspections. I did not take these photos. I myself do buy in. Saw the sign for myself. Okay. So see the signs from April 16th. We see we see the. >> We see this. photo taken from April 16th 2026. >> Do you have any photos of the remainder of the facility specifically of the of the hotel premises. Anything that goes ahead and >> and shows absence. So those were taken by you. Now you said that you've done several drive-bys. Did you actually go into the premises and do a walk around of the premises some point in time? So these were your observations as you were driving your car on Tamiami trail. You didn't take any photos in connection with those observations. Did you? I okay you described which is we believe use outside the rooms. Did you take any photos of the homes, those those personal objects that you saw outside the room. >> I did not. I. >> believe one of our code inspectors might we get that. We'll get there. But I bet you didn't. You didn't do that, OK? and I noticed. In the memorandum submitted by the city. There was a characterization with regard to the utilization of the property. >> As a a and multifamily housing, I believe in not as a hotel. Do you have any evidence to substantiate that? >> No, just by what I said by the appearance and lack of being able to book a room for hotel. What tried? Look to see if you can book a room. >> What is it that you did to try and book a room? >> Just like any other way. And the other hotel, you can just simply go on Google Maps click on the website you know, try to find a way to to book a room or at least of kind of phone numbers, something to call. So I researched all right. Cool that Google nothing came up with a cabana and nothing came up for any hotel name or anything that was there. The only thing that we did find was and I believe it's one of the pictures that we're showing from. I believe it was 2023. There's a fire or some kind of document stating to text some number 4 rooms. But that was from I believe 2023. This is the only thing that we can find it again. The cabana in motel. We couldn't find any evidence of that being. Operational. But that actually does mast of ad that says the cup and metallic correct. >> Correct from I believe 2023. Again, that was from Yelp. So I don't know who posted that. >> Where that came from. You don't know when that was, you in the that >> Yes, the date is You can see it from here. October 16th of 2023 3 years ago. You are certain that. >> This this information came from that user on that time and date. I believe that's when it's posted. that it's posted. So when you click on that. That listing, that's what comes on. This is the picture on Yelp. That's a picture on Yelp specifically on Yelp. Yes, okay. But it's and it's connected with this user from 2023. somehow connected or is it just it's just there are a bunch of those things that are independent of the users. I would have chalk. I'm not sure gets tied to a the use of highlighted in Blue. Did you actually go ahead and take this screen shot for the purposes of didn't OK? So you don't really know. You don't know the interaction between them. Some. Okay. So with regard to you're trying to book a room, so you went online you trying to see if you could click on something. The book a room on Google Eye. You can find anything. Did you go to kayak? Some of the applications that are out there for for travel site. >> I didn't know down which ones exactly because there's a lot of I want to if you and I couldn't find even Google, I would figure. The cub an in motel, which is the previous team. But I knew would be the way, too, because there's no other name there that that would be the way for me to find. And nothing came up. >> You know, if there's a requirement the city code hotels and motels have to have the ability to book online. >> There isn't a requirement, but there's no requirement have a definition of hotel motel. aware that I'm I'm asking specifically about requirement that guests can book online. There is no requirement that a guest has to be able to book online. Correct Is there any specific requirement or definition and and the ordinance as 2 required signage for hotel or motel. We think you must have a hotel. midst of a sign that says hotel. These dimensions in this position. Is there something that you can point to us? >> No, there isn't. But there is a part of the code not get the just it just trying to qualify her and others. the opportunity to say yes or no and then give an explanation. asking just for a yes or no if there's something them. Thank you. Thank you. Said is it is arson. Thank you. So in the code, there are some clear distinctions on how we can cause a fire primary. And this for use. >> And some of that is signage. Some of that is marketing website presents all about stuff. So even though a hotel isn't required to have a signage or isn't required to have its any online booking online presence, we do take all that into consideration when determining what is the primary use. But is it a street this okay. >> And so it's one of the factors. That's one of the factors in determining whether it's a primary user, an accessory use, correct. But it's not a requirement under the COVID that you have to have advertising, right? Correct. And it's not a requirement that you have to have signage for the hotel. Also, correct you know what? Fees are charged to go ahead and to advertise or to be able to book online hotels charge. Okay. You know what involvement? Okay. so when you you were trying to book a room, you must of you saw the address there. You must see the telephone there as well. Right? On from this know wherever it was. You tried. said you went online and you try to book at you couldn't book it. And so my question is, did you see a telephone there? I might add. The telephone, telephone number, telephone number. OK, you didn't see a number were where you looked. You couldn't find a telephone number. don't know how way I could. You're telling me that there's so you know, that number. Sorry, you know that there's a number for Jungle Highway. Alright, Michael House of the you know that the telephone number that you saw, it's for the Jungle Club or the Jungle Highway and not for the hotel. I believe it said Jungle Highway Club or however it's advertised. >> again, >> you don't know who advertises it, right? You testified that you don't know who put that information out. Could have user could have been. >> Well, the Jungle Highway has a website. What I believe is from the property I would imagine. So there is phone number. I don't know if there's a phone number on on the sign. I can't recall. >> Detection, you actually call the number. So you you didn't even make an attempt to go ahead and book a room by calling up that number. >> Now, there's no indicate there was no indication on the website on the sign that there was a hotel motel use. So that's part of our consideration. Is how does someone know that there's a hotel motel? If if there's no indication online or on the sign? as >> Respectfully the jungle room and the hotel are not separate. Entities are actually one part of the same business. And there's a telephone number that's there. You councils testify? No, I'm actually I'm actually setting up a look at my question. Very well. thank you so so you didn't make any efforts to go ahead and to ascertain whether that telephone number is associated with the hotel portion think of them. You just made an assumption that that in fact, most people on the part is not true. >> From what I saw, yes, because it only said bar and nightclub and that you made an assumption based upon the fact that it was tied with with bar. >> And you, you did this cursed research But nobody made a phone call there to try and ascertain. And with regard inspection. You didn't go on site to go ahead and 2. Make a determine whether they can determination whether there are any individuals that are actually. Occupying any of these rooms. >> I did it myself. And I believe that other staffer told from the manager to not go on site or he would call the cops. So we were not permitted to go inside to do an inspection. >> There was no request to go ahead and do an inspection. No formal requests to do inspections of some form showing up wanting to go in inspect. Yes, nothing that was done in connection with these proceedings where you reached out to my office or to my client said we'd like to do an inspection of facility. Not Not yet, but yet you're able to go ahead make an assertion that it's close without actually doing an inspection. >> It appears that we have enough evidence to do that. Yes, you think you have an effect in time. >> Cherry picked out, you know. >> The yellow pad that you saw sounds close. There's a telephone number that's associated with or not. >> chemical. So you saw the ad for the commander there. >> It closed, but there's a telephone number on that. There's a telephone number associated with that I call in an ad with the call that with regard to that. Review, I guess, are listing. let's take a look take a look at the full the full page. You have a full page just screen shot. >> I believe the testimony is that the city didn't call any phone number. Because it couldn't find a phone number. >> Will the inquiry is whether the U.S. and the attempt to actually look for a telephone number in open. We just took a face value that said close and so use of the clothes you didn't try and actually find in a telephone number for the cabana and on on this This page. >> Right? Yes, we saw was closed. So we didn't do any further investigation on any phone numbers or anything like that. In addition to we couldn't find any other information on the cabana. And so. >> it's hard to Besides the What other searching did you do? To ascertain your? Determination that the hotel appears to be closed. >> just a street, Google search of command and motel, Sarasota search Expedia. Search on Priceline. >> So you're actually did go to those applications asked you earlier if you'd gone and you said you didn't know which ones to go to use a kayak specifically. I asked if there was any other So you actually went to Expedia. You went to Priceline. You try to find you can find it on Did you did you search? Did you do a Google search for You to search and these are are live your life. Eat here to go ahead and to do that search to repeat that, sir, to do. Is there is there the search. It a screenshot or is essentially the Internet. >> If you want. go ahead and do But I >> All I'm asking your honors that she shows us what she did in terms of search. >> And that is, is that she went on various Web sites. She did a Google search. She search. She did. A number of different church built behind those searches. He did not look at the reviews. Some of the cites that. number asked about me. >> I think you have summarize your honor. I would like to know about on this page since this is representative of us are she did? What was the information without clicking on it? Because we don't want me to go into search. We can do it on our case. But I'm s