Loading...
CEH-12-05-2025-MINS LONGWOOD CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING Longwood City Commission Chambers 175 West Warren Avenue Longwood, Florida MINUTES December 5, 2025 9:00 AM Present: Amy Goodblatt, Special Magistrate Benjamin Schafer, City Attorney Also Present: Shelly Brana, Code Enforcement Officer Robert Cuttle, Respondent Sheila Boone-Martin, Respondent Ronida Durham, Respondent Veronica Smith, Respondent Jose Torres, Respondent Luisa Bencosme, Respondent 1. CALL TO ORDER Special Magistrate Amy Goodblatt called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approve the minutes from the October 23, 2025 hearing. Special Magistrate Goodblatt approved Minutes from the October 23, 2025 meeting. 3. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEEDINGS Special Magistrate Goodblatt explained the hearing process for the attendees. 4. ROLL CALL OF SCHEDULED CASES Special Magistrate Goodblatt did a roll call of the scheduled cases to determine which Respondents were present. 5. SWEARING IN OF ALL WITNESSES Special Magistrate Goodblatt swore in all witnesses. 12/5/2025/ 1 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. CE25-00294:JOSEPH LAWRENCE RETAIL LLC, 190 S RONALD REAGAN #116 BLVD. Violation: LDC, ARTICLE X SECTION 10.1.0 No Permit Case removed, compliant. B. CE25-00298: HERITAGE VILLIAGE AT LONGWOOD LTD, 347 ORANGE AVE. Violation: CC, CHAPTER 18 SECTION 18-63 Minimum Property Standards CC, CHAPTER 38 SECTION 38-13 NUISANCE CEO Brana presented a cost recovery document and photos to the Special Magistrate. The Respondent(s) were present. Initial notification was given on October 20, 2025. Notice of this Hearing was duly served on Heritage Village at Longwood LTD, respondent property owner, by certified mail November 6, 2025. The Respondent was cited with violation of CC, CHAPTER 18 SECTION 18-63-Minimum Property Standards and CC, CHAPTER 38 SECTION 38-61-Nuisance. CEO Brana gave the following testimony: This property is infested with roaches. It is not healthy or sanitary. The condition of the property is such that the infestation of roaches affects the health, safety, and well-being of the residents of the cited property. Three residents complained of roaches in their units and in the common areas. Their e-mails and photographs were introduced into evidence. There have been communications with the Management Company, but the problem has persisted past the date set for compliance. The infestations are inside the walls in bedrooms, bathrooms, living areas, kitchen, and inside computer keyboards. On November 21, 2025, the Corporate Office for the Property Management Company agreed it would address the problem. Witnesses gave the following testimony: Sheila Boone, a resident, testified she has lived at the property for almost ten (10) years. Since the second week she has lived there, there have been roaches throughout her apartment even in her kitchen, her refrigerator and in her bed. While the Management Company does send out exterminators, the problem has persisted for ten (10) years. Ronida Durham, a resident for over ten (10) years, testified that she has lupus. The extermination process irritates her lupus. She has spent a lot of money on roach spray. The roaches live in her kitchen, closets, refrigerator (even on the day of the hearing) and her bedroom. She reported the issue to the managers, but the problem persists. A neighbor of hers has also complained over and over to management. Veronica Smith, a new tenant this year, testified she reached out to the City due to the number of roaches. The floors, the trash room, and her apartment are completely infested. She requests, per the lease, that the tenants be relocated while a serious treatment is applied. Due to the extermination fumes, she must eat out. She has health problems that have caused her to go to 12/5/2025/2 the emergency room which she attributes to the fumes from the chemicals used to treat the roaches unsuccessfully. The Respondent Property Owner gave the following testimony: Robert Cuttle, the Director of Asset Management for the Management Company testified that he spoke to on-site management when this issue was brought to his attention. He has engaged a new pest control company, who started treatments on December 1, 2025. The intent of the Management company is to provide a safe, healthy environment. The Code Enforcement Special Magistrate made inquiry of CEO Brana and the Respondent. The Code Enforcement Special Magistrate determined the following facts exist at the cited property: The cited property fails to meet Minimum Property Standards as it is unsafe and unhealthy due to a persistent infestation of cockroaches which was not cured. A nuisance exists at the cited property due to the persistent infestation of cockroaches, as it endangers the health and safety of the residents and is offensive to their senses. The infestation interferes with the resident's enjoyment of life and property as they try to do daily tasks, such as sleeping, cooking, and working on their computers while cockroaches land on them. The spray of chemicals to treat the cockroaches for such long periods of time impacts the health of the tenants. The Respondent has violated CC, CHAPTER 18 SECTION 18-63- Minimum Property Standards and CC, CHAPTER 38 SECTIONS 38-31-Nuisance. Compliance requires the following: 1. Hire a certified professional to eliminate the infestation of cockroaches. Retain a certified professional to continue maintaining the premises so it is roach-free in the future. The exterminator should treat inside the walls, as well as inside and outside the building. The building must be roach-free. Respondents are to pay administrative costs of$53.94 within 30 days of service of the Final Orders. If the respondents do not comply by December 22, 2025 by eliminating the roaches, Respondent shall pay a fine of$250 per day for each day the violation continues to exist beyond the date set for compliance. C. CE25-00218: 320 DANE LANE LLC, 320 DANE LN. VIOLATION: CC, CHAPTER 74 SECTION 74-38 STORMWATER MAINTENANCE CEO Brana presented a cost recovery document and photos to the Special Magistrate. The Respondent(s) were present via Microsoft Teams video call. Initial notification was given on August 26, 2025. Notice of the hearing was duly served on the respondent property owner via certified mail on November 6, 2025. The Respondent was cited with violation of CC, CHAPTER 74 SECTION 74-38-Stormwater-Maintenance. CEO Brana gave the following testimony: The retention pond at the back of the parcel in question is overgrown and does not permit drainage. The condition of the property did not change after the Notices were sent. The Property Manager offered to provide evidence that she would hire 12/5/2025/3 someone to clean the retention pond and would tell the City. Two estimates for clean up were received from the Respondent on December 4, 2025. Photographs and a Cost Recovery Affidavit were introduced into evidence. The Respondent Property Owner gave the following testimony: Luisa Bencosme, the Property Manager, testified that she got two estimates to clean the retention pond. Ramaga is the contractor selected by the Property Owner. She is unsure of how long it will take to clean up the retention pond, but 60 days should be enough. The Code Enforcement Special Magistrate made inquiry of the CEO and the Respondents. The Code Enforcement Special Magistrate determined the following pertinent facts exist: The retention pond at the rear of the cited property is so overgrown with vegetation that it does not drain properly. The Respondent has violated CC, CHAPTER 74 SECTION 74-38- Stormwater- Maintenance. Compliance requires that the following be done: 1. Restore the retention pond to a clean state to allow for proper drainage, by cleaning it and maintaining it. Respondent is to pay administrative costs of$72.75. This cost is to be paid within 30 days of service of the Final Order. If the Respondent does not comply within 60 days from the date of service of the Final Order, the Respondent shall pay a fine of$50 per day for each day the violation continues to exist beyond the date set for compliance. 7. REPORTS-CASE UPDATES. None. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS. None. 9. OLD BUSINESS. A. CE25-00147: 110 PINEAPPLE LAND TRUST,TRSTE LLC TR 110 PINEAPPLE CT. The Code Enforcement Special Magistrate heard the request of the Respondent to eliminate the fines and fees assessed against the property owner as a result of the hearing held on September 25, 2025 and the failure of the respondent to come into compliance within the timelines specified in the Order. The Special Magistrate found that: 1. The Respondent came into compliance on the violations related to the fence after fines of $1,125 accrued. 2. The Respondent has not yet paid the $92.96 administrative cost ordered by the special Magistrate. 3. Respondent has not yet pulled a permit to fill in the inground pool. The Special Magistrate ordered that: 12/5/2025/4 a. The fines related to the fence violations are waived. b. The fines pertaining to the failure to obtain a permit and the $92.96 administration fee are not waived. 10. NEW BUSINESS. None. 11. ADJOURN Special Magistrate Goodblatt adjourned the meeting at 10:11 a.m. A Goodblatt, Special Magistrate Shelly C. Br , Code Compliance Officer 12/5/2025/5