Come to order today's meeting of the municipal code enforcement board is called to order on January 28th, 2026.

Welcome everyone.

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty.

Please be seated.

Agendas of today's meeting are on the wall at the entrance to chambers.

Please remember to turn off your cell phones.

The municipal code enforcement board consists of seven members who are appointed by the city council.

We serve voluntarily.

It is this board's intention to promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Clearwater by providing this equitable, effective, and inexpensive method of enforcing certain codes within the city.

The board considers new business items in two parts.

First the violation, then affirmative relief.

Formal rules of evidence do not apply.

Each side is limited to 15 minutes, and the board may grant additional time.

All proceedings will be conducted in a calm civil manner.

Individuals who conduct themselves otherwise will be asked to leave.

If necessary, they will be escorted from the chambers.

Now I ask all who plan to speak to rise and be sworn in by our clerk.

I do thank you.

May I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Motion to approve.

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion approved.

Next on the agenda is our new business items.

We're gonna start out of order today.

We're gonna call uh agenda item 3.28 continued from December 17th, case 197-25.

Fire respondents Moss and Associates at Court 400 Coronado Avenue in violation of code for illicit discharge and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if not met.

Uh is there anyone here to speak on that?

Counselor?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Jared Simpson with the city attorney's office.

Uh as you know, we've continued this case last month as we were discussing uh a resolution with um the respondent here.

We do have a stipulated order that we're asking for the board to approve.

Just to give you uh quick rundown of that, they are um accepting responsibility for the situation.

Uh the order would find that there a violation did occur and it imposes a fine in the amount of uh 42,500.

This is a stipulated order that the parties have agreed to.

If you have more questions about it, the staff's here to answer that, but we're asking that you approve this.

This is something that both the parties have agreed as a as a fair uh fair resolution to this situation.

Okay, board.

Do you have any questions for counselor?

No.

Um we would put this under uh just a regular motion.

We ask the motion to be just to approve this the stipulated order as presented.

Okay, would we have to find them in violation first?

Is it first motion?

No, no, okay.

Let's adopt the stipend order.

Can I get a uh a motion to find them in violation?

I move to accept the stipulated order as presented.

In case number one nine seven-two five.

Have a second.

Second.

All in favor, aye, all opposed.

All right, motion carries.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

All right, now back to our order here.

Uh 3.1 on our agenda has been withdrawn.

3.2 on our on our agenda is continued from November 18th, 2025.

Case number 146-25.

Find respondents, uh, Venbach and Tranfuha at 585 Sky Harbor Drive number 121 in violation of code for residential business tax receipt and issue an order with the compliance deadline and find if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on that?

No.

Inspector, you have the floor.

Uh yes, your board.

Uh, we're just seeking a declaration of violation on this case.

They brought the property in compliance, but it just took them quite a while to do so.

So we would like to request that declaration place.

And you guys are satisfied with it being a compliance information.

Okay, can I have a declaration then?

I have a question first.

Okay, and that is would it be the the standard first motion uh in violation or was it violation?

Was yes okay?

The full motion, correct?

That's a nuisance statement.

That's nuisance abatement violation.

Yeah, okay.

Number two.

I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing, and to enter an order that no fine be imposed.

If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to 500 for each day.

The violation continues to exist.

I'm a second, second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Motion carries.

Uh next is 3.3 on our agenda has been withdrawn.

3.4 is continue has been was continued from December 17th, 2025.

Is continued to February.

I'm sorry, I didn't see that one.

Uh 3.5 on our with agenda is drawn.

3.6 on the agenda is withdrawn.

Case 3.7 on our agenda case 01-26, fine respondents, non-Martian von Burns.

Uh Rev Trust at 1535 Gilf to Bay Boulevard in violation of code for portable storage unit and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not made.

Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

Would you come forward, sir?

You don't.

All right.

Will you please state your names uh for the record to our clerk, please?

Right.

My name is Vico Lawson, and I represent Mr.

Don Martins for N Burns.

All right.

Um, first thing I'm gonna ask do you admit or deny the violation?

Deny.

You deny the violation.

If you'll have a seat right there, we'll bring the city up to uh explain the case and we'll get back to you.

Thank you, sir.

Hello, inspector, do you have the floor?

Thank you.

Uh Vicky setup code compliance inspector with the city of Clearwater.

This is for case number 01-26 for 1535 Gulf Bay Boulevard.

There is one violation here for a portable storage unit, code section 3-2103-H1 and H2.

Notice the violation was sent on 924 25 with a compliance date of 1015 25.

The certified mail receipt was received on 1010 25.

This is a picture dated on October 1st of the it's part of a semi-trailer that's parked out there.

There is no cab to it, it's just the trailer itself.

This is a side view picture of it.

This is another picture of it showing that the things that it sits on, they're broken.

Closer up photo of that.

This picture was taken today showing you that it's still there.

The things are still broken.

It's being held up by wood.

Compliance can be met for the storage container by removing the storage container.

Request, I'm sorry, request compliance honor before February 25th, 2026.

If the violations continue to exist, impose a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation for each day, the violation continues to exist.

All right, thank you.

I'll have the uh can you come back up, please?

Well, you've seen the city's evidence.

Um, how are you going to respond?

Yes.

So Mr.

Von Burns had an opportunity to exchange some emails with the inspector.

And the primary concern was since the trailer was purchased as a mode of transportation to get goods sold at the restaurant to the restaurant, and during the recent hurricanes, it was damaged.

And since my uh Mr.

Von Burns speaks Polish fluently.

I speak Polish as well, so if you don't mind, I will uh interpret what he's telling.

Uh so the damage that was experienced.

You we actually had a chance to see it at uh the images showed that the legs supporting the trailer were damaged.

Uh so while at this moment, Mr.

Von Burns is not able to use it for transportation, it was never used for storage.

And so that was the primary concern expressed in his emails was well.

I am not using it as a portable storage unit.

Um, could you please provide a definition?

Because the uh the handbook, the city, the code compliance handbook fails to define a portable storage unit.

And so um that's the foundation of the misunderstanding.

Okay, that is all.

So you're just saying that it's not uh being used for storage, but so it's it's okay to be there.

I mean uh so it is uh registered trailer.

The intent is to use it for transportation and to transport goods that are sold at the restaurant, not to store anything there.

Yes, it is currently damaged, and Mr.

Von Burns intends to repair it when he has the funds available.

He purchased the trailer with funds from um loan from the government to um develop his business to grow his business.

And yes, due to the hurricane, it was damaged, and he's unable to use it at the time, but he never intended to use it as a storage unit.

He wants to use it for transportation.

That's his goal.

Okay.

Now, do you think you're gonna be able to have this trailer fixed and and and moved out of there?

Because one way or the other it can't, I don't think it can sit there, uh even empty or full.

You know what I mean?

Like in the condition that it's in.

So is is the February 25th, is that going to be enough time for him to get it uh back in operating order and and get it out of there?

So Mr.

Von Burns is uh hoping to clarify because see it wasn't expressed in the notices to him that the that the primary concern is the condition.

Yes, he wants to fix it.

Uh he doesn't know if he will be able to do it by February 25th.

The um business at the restaurant is slower than he expected, slower than he anticipated.

However, um the his his concern is he feels that he's being well intimidated into you the that it's there's a claim that it's a portable storage unit.

That's not the case.

It's just um it's just that he um he he didn't intentionally damage the trailer, it's the hurricane that's a lot of it.

I understand that so that's his concern.

We just can't we just can't like leave have an open, you know, whenever he gets it done.

We have to have the time.

We we give him to the 2050 next month.

If he needs another 30 days, maybe we'll extend it out till March, but we have to have a timeline.

We just can't leave it as an open, you know, get it fixed whenever you can.

Mr.

Chair, I have questions.

May I counselor?

Oh, thank you.

Um when when this case was initiated, I think we were the um of the impression that it was being used for storage.

That's why the case was put forward uh under the portable storage unit code.

Um there is a there is a definition for that in our code, and and it basically says use for storage.

Um if their testimony today under oath is that it it's not being used for storage, um then you know that that does contradict what we were initially bringing the case under, the theory that we initially brought the case under.

Um but um the fact that the the condition of it is kind of a separate issue that was not noticed.

Um we the city I and it would be my um advice to the staff to to re-notice to focus on the on the nuisance part of it.

Um given the condition, it's my understanding though that when this first started, um the the trailer wasn't exactly in the condition, it's got it's actually deteriorated in condition.

Um so the the condition it's in is a is a violation, it's just under a different code section, and we would I would recommend that we re- notice for for that section.

Um whether or not he can continue to park it there.

I I believe that that this is a commercial property, so um it's a different type of rules for commercial vehicles there, but that's something that I think we can work out with the staff.

Um I I guess I would just say that it based on what they're saying, unless unless our unless our inspector has evidence to contradict the storage component, that is the case, that is the case that we've brought forward.

Um it doesn't change the fact that the trailer would need to be repaired, but we as a formality we would we would re-notice under a different code section for that.

So do you want to withdraw it or continue it?

Well, I I guess I would put that to you.

I don't I don't in my I don't know how and since I've been here, we've not amended our notice and continued the case.

Right.

I that would obviously be our preference because I'm not aware of any legal reason why we couldn't just re-issue a notice and then come back next month.

Right.

So why don't we just continue it until pending what the city does with the notice?

Unless our inspector has some evidence to contradict the storage component, and and um then I I would I would certainly like to hear from her on that part of it.

Um I mean it it does a it's a you know it's a trailer that's could be used for that.

We were of the impression that's how the case was initiated.

The condition of the trailer deteriorated from from then.

So do you have anything to add to that part of this book?

Sure.

Would we want to dismiss it and just have her?

Let's see what the inspector says we want to step up.

Excuse me.

So when I first um went out to the property, there were several trailers and food trucks there and several ABVs, and including that semi-trailer.

I did speak to a girl there who said that um the owner was her husband, he was out of town, out out of the country.

I went over all the violations with her, and when we got to the storage container, she did express to me that they use that for storage that it has to be there.

They store a lot of stuff in there that they use for the restaurant.

I at that time explained to her that they couldn't have that there at a storage, and she said that she wouldn't be able to do get it removed from the property until her husband got back from wherever he was, was in another country.

Um, and this is where we've ended up because nothing's been done with it.

My case is for the storage container, it wasn't for the fact that it's deteriorating, it's been deteriorating for the last two years.

So I mean I I that's irrelevant to this.

This was just because she stated they are using that as a storage container.

It has not moved.

I've never seen a semi hooked up to it.

I've never even seen the semi-cab on the property.

It's just that container.

Okay.

So I mean, based on that, our position is that there is the the board does have sufficient evidence to determine that it's a a storage container and that it needs to be removed.

Um certainly it's within the board to to weigh the evidence and make a decision.

Was there any reason other than your wife telling the truth that she would say that you were using it for storage?

Uh so the uh the person that the inspector spoke to at the premises, the uh wife of Mr.

Von Burns, uh never consulted with him on what trailer is actually going to be used for, and no, it was uh not uh used as a storage.

I guess it's a notification results for that.

There is no locking mechanism, it's available.

You can open the the door.

Um it it nothing there is of being protected and of value and storage, so um that's that's the that's the position.

I mean as well.

And uh Mr.

Von Burns' wife wanted to co-operate and then try and uh work with the inspector.

Um, but he is she only works there, he's the owner of the restaurant.

Uh and uh he wasn't consulted on it.

He that's but his wife doesn't know.

I mean, like my wife knows what's you know going on on my property, you know.

That's what I'm saying.

It just and she has no reason to perjure herself right in front of here.

So I'm gonna take the testimony as truthful, right?

And that his wife did say that there was being stuff stored in there.

Right.

Board members board, do you have any other questions that you that's my opinion on it?

I'm uh I'm kind of bivalent on it in that I think that I understand she said it was used for storage.

I don't I don't see any photos of you know stuff being stored in it, so I mean I don't know one way or the other.

I mean, I believe what the inspector is telling us and what she said.

I think that based on uh uh Jared's statement that there are other perhaps other uh causes of actions that are pertinent to um also pertinent to the existence of it there that perhaps we should let the city revisit it and uh that's my you know unless uh unless somebody wants to call it a violation, you know.

Okay more do you you guys want to weigh in on this?

Okay more do you guys want to weigh in on this it's rough knowing which way to go because as Bob said, there's no picture of evidence of anything in the storage unit or the trailer.

Yeah, right.

So it's kind of hard to decide.

Well, do we know whether it's violating another code or not?

It is actually cited for that.

We're only cited here for storage, not the condition.

And that's the basis of it back to the city to that's why I was pursue other other causes under the code uh for correcting the whatever that needs to be corrected.

We could dismiss this, and then they could go back with a well we continue this one and start up the second one and try to confirm one way or the other by looking in that trailer.

Our preference would be to continue because you know, we have notice there they're obviously participating in our process, they're here today.

This is not a uh an imminent safety issue.

This is a an aesthetic in uh uh you know neighborhood um aesthetic issue that we're trying to um you know make sure everything looks nice.

It is a commercial property, so they do have some rights to park commercial vehicles there, and we we obviously want to respect that.

I understand the business this business has been there for a very long time and has been up in our in our community for a long time.

So we're we're very sensitive to all those things.

We're willing to work with them.

The fact that they're here participating in our process is good.

Um, and so we would just ask to to continue rather than to dismiss because if um there's we don't need to necessarily start over.

There's lots of different ways that this can be approached.

So I would just ask for continuance, and then I can work with the staff and hopefully work with the property owner, and we can try to figure out a uh reasonable solution.

Okay, I have a question for you, counselor.

If if we move to continue, what what time frame would be appropriate?

30 days, 60 days.

We can we can put something together very quickly, um, and then um we will file with the clerk what it whether it be a supplemental notice or or something to that effect, but um we just asked to go to the next meeting.

Okay, all right.

That's that's that sounds all right with me.

The board is that in that sound okay.

All right, can I get um just a motion to uh continue this until our March or our February meeting?

I move to continue case number one-26 to the March meeting and the date of that it is February 25th to the February meeting, February 25th.

No second.

All in favor, aye, all opposed, all right.

Motion carries.

We're gonna continue it until next month.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

Thank you.

Next on our agenda is 3.8.

Uh case number 02-26.

Find respondents, uh, Gilbert D.

Ginelli at 1411 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in violation of code for exterior surfaces and roof maintenance, and issue an order with the compliance deadline and find if compliance is not made.

Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

Can you come forward, please?

If you will state your name and address to our clerk for the record, sure uh Gilbert G.

Ginelli 909 South Fort Harrison Avenue in Clearwater 33756.

All right, Mr.

Geneli, are you um admitting or denying the violation?

There's violations there.

Meeting the violation today.

Building needs help, and we're we got a plan.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

And have a seat right there, and if my new tenant is here to speak as well.

Okay, can I get a first motion, please?

I move to find the respondent in violation of the code is referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

First motion carries.

Inspector, you have the floor.

Dickie said a code compliance inspector with the city of Clearwater.

This is for case 02-26 for 1411 Gulf State Boulevard.

There are two violations at this property.

The first one being exterior surfaces, code section 3-1502 B and roof maintenance.

Code Section 3-1502 D1, D3, and D5.

Notice the violation was sent on August 28th of 2025 with the compliance date of 928-2025.

The certified mail receipt was received on 915 2025.

This is a picture of the building of the it's kind of the the front side.

This is actually this there's golf de bay in the front, and this is the parking lot that connects to South Hillcrest.

Here's a picture of some of the roof damage, some of the um exterior.

This is the side back view, hole in the roof.

This is leading up to the stairwell.

Some more wood rot and damage.

Again, just a full picture of the different uh paint schemes that are going on.

So then he went back, had somebody go out there, and you can see up in the corner where they took a soft and just tried to cover up the um rotted wood that was along the roof edge.

Um there's still more soffit falling down, a lot of mixed matched paint, some some things that weren't painted at all.

There's a hole in the wall right there next to the door on the left.

Nothing was done in the back.

Uh this thing I had pointed out to him on Monday that how dangerous it was, and it was falling down.

And when I went out there today, it had completely fallen down off the side of the building.

More peeling paint to the stairwell, peeling paint on the side, soffits still falling down.

Some stuff still not painted in the front of the building.

Again, the front of the building, soffit falling down, part of the roof missing, the hole still in the wall, or the hole still in the roof.

Compliance can be met for the exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structural and decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, and faded peeling paint, patching painting, or resurfacing shall be accomplished to match the existing or adjacent surfaces as to the materials, color, bond, and joining.

Compliance can be met for the roof by fixing all holes and maintaining the roof in a safe, secure, and watertight condition, or replacing the roof.

Request compliance on or before February 27, 2026.

If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation for each day, the violation continues to exist.

And there are two violations there.

None at the moment.

Mr.

Janelli, can you come back up, sir?

Sir you think you're gonna be able to get all this done by February the 27th.

No, sir.

I I I've done magic before, but that does that's a challenge.

So what's your timeline?

You're thinking.

Well, um we we have um we we started to work on the building, and then we had two contracts blow up on us for financial reasons.

The prospective tenant couldn't obtain uh financing to go along with the the city grant that's being offered in the in the East Gateway area.

Um I've owned the building for a long time.

Uh we had some very successful tenants in there in the beginning.

Unfortunately, the city allowed the soup kitchen to move into its present location, and in my opinion, that's one of the big death knells of the East Gateway and even parts of downtown.

Um things are looking a whole lot better.

Uh the sound is been a great asset to to the city.

There's new construction going on downtown.

Uh the Church of Scientology has done remarkable with a lot of their properties.

They have remodeled them, they're out for lease.

There is interest.

However, it's still slow downtown.

It's still slow in the East Gateway.

You've got probably one of the top realtors in the city of Clearwater here that can testify about downtown real estate.

She knows probably every piece.

So the building has been a challenge for what is the highest and best use for the property.

Um, it may not be a restaurant, it it may be to knock it down and build some housing there.

But fortunately, I have a new tenant who is proven in the area.

He's been a very has very successful business, and he's looked at we've looked at the building extensively, and he is uh assured us that he can make things work there.

So the process for that being is that we can apply the city through the CRAS grant money available for rehab.

That takes time.

So we have to apply for the grant.

That takes anywhere from one to three months for that process to occur.

If we're given the grant, then it's going to take another month or two to submit to draw plans, submitted to the city for approval for construction to get a through through a general contractor to get a permit to rebuild it.

To um, and then it's gonna take six to eight months for construction to finish it.

takes anywhere from one to three months for that process to to occur if we're given the grant then it's going to take another month or two to submit to draw plans submit it to the city for approval for construction to get a through through a general contractor to get a permit to rebuild it to um and then it's going to take six to eight months for construction to finish it we're not talking about just what's here we're talking about renovating the entire building both inside and out that's our plan and that figure is going to be about one point two to one point four million dollars of cost so we're not talking about just fixing what's here we're talking about completing the entire process and in good faith because the roof does need work I've applied for um a roofing permit and that's in the it's a I don't know if it's been issued yet but it's in the uh it's in the application process through Baker Roofing which is a local roofing company.

Okay.

Well unfortunately we're gonna not gonna be able to give you a year year and a half to get this no no no I understand so what about the exterior services and the roof maintenance can that be accomplished within you know by our March meeting no February it cannot because here's why if we we don't know exactly what we're going to do with the roof we may take off the second floor and put a deck there.

We have to see if the city will allow us to do that.

So that could be pretty quick my my and and we've done this in the past that the city's done this in the past we can set up every month or two we can have a continuation you can we can update the city staff as to what we're doing they can be right along with us in the permit process I understand that you can't give me all this time but we we don't want to just fix what's here and then have to redo it if we renovate the entire building we're just trying to get you to come into compliance I understand the case so all the all the little Chinese things that happen that's all coming off that's not going to be part of the new that that's going to be the whole structure is going to be completely different.

So if we just band-aid what's here in three or four five months all that's gonna come down and I'd rather you know spend the money uh to to rehab the whole building it's it's it's a different case and then uh and and uh and I understand we just we need some cooperation between the city and miss Mulder she's not here today but she said if we're in the process and we're in the grant process they will work with us we didn't come with this specific what does that mean but I I think as a solution if we have periodic updates with the board I can come back here or with city staff or both that will keep you abreast and we're gonna move it we're gonna move as fast forward as we can as the city will allow us to do I mean there's a lot of future unknowns for you though you know how much is the grant going to be what are you going to be able to you know is is your your guy here is he going to be able to come through you know there's a lot of gray area man that this there is you know but we've been encouraged by the by the CRA to apply for the grant yeah for grants uh we we we have there are the funds are available to cover the work or I wouldn't be here today mr denolly have you looked at the estimated or evaluated the cost of just coming into compliance with the existing violations well to to cut to to fix the building outside properly it really needs to be restoccoed understood what that that well I understand that as a contractor I'm looking at uh what violations the code enforcement officer has brought and what it would require to get into compliance with those understanding what your long-term uh intentions and plans are and all of that right um because of the time involved it seems um in our world it's quite a long time in order to make the correct violations so I'm I'm focusing on what would be the cost the the minimal cost to get into compliance with the existing violations that that the inspector has has shown us I we we had a quote for a roof of about 4000 dollars I we have it not bid out the rest of it to come into compliance but once again we may take if you see the building and you can certainly go out and I'll be happy to meet you there and show you we're gonna do but we may take off the second floor right if the city will allow us to put a debt on the on top of the building right then we're gonna take out the second floor.

So the so doing the roof would be would do the roof and then take it out.

Understood again I'm I'm I'm looking at focusing on the the code compliance case understanding what your long-term plans are and I think I think that's great.

I mean we could we can fix some holes we can replace the rotten wood we can paint the building but that's and I don't mind doing that I'll be happy to do that I but that's we're we're gonna paint we're gonna restucle the whole building and we may we may change the front doors we may change the windows we may add doors we may subtract doors as as part of the total rehab of of of the building and you you know you're in you're in construction so you know what we're up against.

I but that's we're we're gonna paint we're gonna restucle the whole building under and we may we may change the front doors we may change the windows we may add doors we may subtract doors as part of the total rehab of of of the building and you you know you're in you're in construction so you know what we're up against.

Which if you don't get the uh grant but uh he says we'll get the grant that we were just talking about yeah okay or or or if we don't get the grant then I would I would get some opinions by like Miss Anderson as to what would be the highest and best use for us to do with the property which may be level the building and build housing there are a lot of good realtors around that that know clear water better than I do so that would be that would be an option that we have and and are you are you gonna are you going to be pursuing the grant and pursuing the city's permission to do what you want to do absolutely at the same time concurrently concurrently okay I say we do 90 days have him come back if he does if he doesn't have the grant then he's gonna have to go forward with the with the cleanup and if he's got the grant then we figure out the time plan that you have any city have any I I don't have anything to add um I I guess I don't know if staff wants to comment on on any of what's been said yeah or building official would like to have a word.

Yeah you step forward sir okay I'm gonna hear all sides here so we can figure out what to do with this place.

I have Kevin Garriott with the uh building department City Clearwater building official and I just want to let Dr.

Ganelli and the board know that we get uh inquiries from the CRA all the time um about their loans and their grants finding out if people have code uh violations before they get any um approval to grants so that needs to be considered you need to be aware of that and don't count on something if you know I don't know all the details so I can't go into great explanation but I know they check with our office all the time on that sort of thing for code violations before any grant money is right right awarded does that mean so somehow they're connected I don't know how it would need to come from them but I know they check with us all the time.

Would you be able to tell us uh definitively or tell us one way or the other if there are violations on a property that it it limits or accepts uh the grant till the violations are corrected is that how it works do you know uh that answer would need to come from the CRA now that yeah uh if I may uh I if there is more questions about the grant program I'd I would ask if we could bring that back to you next month I I I'm a s I would assume that there are occasions where we do provide grant money on properties where violations occur but I would assume that all of those violations would need to be remedied um as part of the expenditures of the of the grant so that that could be but I I'm not personally familiar with the grant program that he's um discussing and I haven't been involved in any of the conversations that that they're that they're talking about so I can't really help but um you know I would prefer um uh a shorter time than 90 days of if if there's just to answer these questions about the grants and things like that we could we could come back next month and we could um tell you what grant programs that they're looking at what the requirements of those programs are all that stuff we could we could get that information to you pretty quickly I have a question Dr.

Janelli would you be able to fix the unsafe areas maybe cover that hole into the building maybe slap some paint on so that it's all consistent like do some minor until you get the grant so that there aren't such you know terrible outpoints on the building yes Ms.

Anderson we were doing that but then we had a prospective tenant so we stopped because they wanted to redo the whole building so we were working on that you can see some of the pictures in the beginning from what they are today.

Right so we we were moving forward with with that to to get to do the bare minimum.

And could you do that within the next 30 days I I could attempt to do that.

The roof is that that's going to be a problem.

Right.

That's gonna be the bit the biggest the the grounds and the building that's much easier to to handle than then a 40 50 thousand dollar roof.

Uh we uh there's trash there.

You my guys go out every two or three weeks, and every two or three weeks there's six bags of trash from homeless people because the property's vacant.

Have you um have you considered uh looking at uh rather than replacing the roof because I understand that what your long-term plan is based on your what you've told us, have you considered having the uh the appearance or the the roof repair to satisfy the appearance issues until you do your major project.

Uh I I'm not a roofer, but I've had three roofing companies look at that.

That was my first choice.

And uh I we didn't ask the third roofer who got the permit whether he'd be willing just to repair it, but there's apparently some liability on their part that if it's done not done to code, then they have a responsibility for that as a roofing company.

Gotcha.

We we lost a lot of shingles from in the whole two couple holes in the roof from the hurricane.

Gotcha.

I mean, we could put a we can put we could put we can fix the holes in the roof.

We could certainly put some shingles back.

Uh, but it's not gonna be it's it the roof is still gonna be needs new shingles, it needs other wood replacement and other things.

Understood.

I'm thinking again, I'm my focus is based on the case before us in terms of the appearance and and satisfying the code compliance issues with the code compliance officer.

And if that if you're able to make that go away, then you're satisfied here and you rock and roll with your future project.

Right.

So my again, my focus is on what it would what it's what's a workable, reasonable way and amount of time to make the code compliance issue go away so we can resolve this case.

It it and uh we can make it all go away.

It's gonna cost about probably a hundred thousand, maybe more, but then we're gonna redo it if we move forward with redoing the building.

Everything we would do to to band-aid the problem now would have to be redone if we're going to rehab the whole building.

Understood.

In in six months.

Understood.

That's the dilemma.

Um, you know, it's a two-way street here.

I um we're we're looking for some a little little bit of room to work.

And and I was we were we were led to believe that we the the CRA knows the condition of the building, and they've encouraged us to apply for the grant.

Mr.

Telanger can can speak to that.

And he has experience with the CRA presently with his business and and the property.

Okay, understood.

Kevin wants to say something.

Mr.

Garrett.

Kevin, would you step forward?

Yes, thank you.

I have one other thing to add that uh we just checked with the uh permitting status, and uh with the exception of one document, the roof permit is ready to issue.

So that's just a uh filling out a paper and signing it.

So they uh virtually have a roof permit right now.

But that's for the roof, the current roof not taking it off and doing their deck if they get the grant.

I would presume, but I don't have the documents in front of me.

Dr.

Janelli saying yes, okay.

Yeah, it's for a re it's for a re-roof and in the present condition.

And the roofer said that he's he's done work with he's got uh grants from the city as well, and he's worked with the city baker ruby, and he's willing to work with us in in the grants in getting the grant to help with the rehab.

So he he's he's aware of all that.

Yeah, we want to try to, you know, we we wanted for you to get the grants and we want you to get the building up and and you know, could you know and we definitely want you know new businesses in clear water and stuff.

There's nobody but we've got to resolve this somehow, and and with you know, just our our main two things the exterior service and the roof.

We just can't we can't wait for you know, maybe a grant, maybe not, maybe we're gonna tear the roof off, maybe we're not.

There's you know, you brought us nothing concrete for us to sit decide to in your favor, you know, right, right about it.

You just keep giving us these scenarios where it may happen, it may not.

You know, we can we can't go on that, you know.

We well, I I think uh we want to work with you, but I mean she was showing us pictures from back in October.

You know, so it's been you know three or four months.

Yeah, yeah, hold on.

If we can have like a 60 days, I thought we'd uh C at A.

I think we got the approval for 800,000 to finish this uh no only.

I need like a three contract to give me a lesson for inside outside.

Maybe I'll come.

Gotcha.

Yeah, I need like a three contract to get my estimate from inside outside.

Uh and I'm ready to talk with the CTO Claw Water.

Uh I think uh ready to give me like around 800,000 to fix everything inside outside.

We need like a 60 more days to finish all the paper to see, give us approval for all these things.

I I mean I don't have any problem giving them out until our March meeting, but that's that's you know, yeah, you know, we'll we'll we'll we'll go ahead and with our second motion and and just change that February to the March.

And then you want to ask for an update, or you can establish fines at that point.

Well, you know, we'll we we'll ask for definitely ask for an update from at least the inspector as long as she you know continues to as long as they mr.

Dr.

Janelli keeps in contact with our inspector, you know.

I mean that's where that's where I would be.

So Mr.

Chair, yes, if I may.

We in the past we have had exterior service violations where um you know they look superficial, and then as they get in, they realize there's a lot more work that needs to be done, they pull permits, and we wait to file the affidavit of non-compliance, and we let them work through the permit before we before we file that affidavit.

Because as you know, you give a deadline that the city has to file that affidavit of non-compliance to actually trigger the the fine and come back to you to get approval of that.

So is that uh determined on our deadline?

I mean, if if it's not done by like the 25th, it'll automatically trigger that.

No, that's what I'm saying is that we we on that you give us a deadline, and then on the day after the deadline, our inspector goes out to the property.

If it's still in violation, they write up a document called an affidavit of noncompliance.

You see those on your agenda as well, um, and we bring it back.

But the obviously that's a determination for the inspector to make at that time the day after the deadline.

What I'm saying is that in the past we were had situations where exterior surface violations open up to become a lot more.

We've we've paused, even though technically they are in violation the day after the deadline, we wait to file that affidavit, we let them work through the permit, we let them you know comply with the inspections and go through the permitting process, and then um we we either file it as complied if that happens, or we we file the affidavit of if it gets stalled for some reason, we bring that affidavit of non-compliance at a later time.

So that's what we would suggest here is that um if you impose a deadline, if if you move it out as you were discussing that you move that deadline out a little bit further, give them a little bit more time.

They apply for the grant, they get the grant, they get the permit, everything looks like it's moving.

We can pause on filing that affidavit of non-compliance and let them work through those uh processes.

And and I can assure you when we start to fix it, we're you were you're gonna we're gonna we're gonna run into I've already gone down that route with the contractors and I to band-aid the stucco is the uh to band-aid the cracks in the walls that is this is a bigger job than just we understand putting a little mud on it.

We understand that's what we're trying to find a solution here to that kind of like covers everything and makes everyone.

If I could suggest in a couple of months, we'll have a direct good direction from this from the CRA in the in the grant, and we'll know exactly where we'll be.

And uh if we get in our first meeting with them, if we get positive direction, we'll start moving ahead with plans and and everything else to uh to expediate the the time.

Time is money for us as well.

Yeah.

Do we have any you have any uh problems with extending this out to our March 25th meeting?

Well, we're gonna go ahead and we're gonna go ahead and with our second motion, and we're gonna give a deadline of of March 25th of our meeting.

No, and then let's like he said, you know, Jared said that if they show you know stuff's moving forward and everything, they can go ahead and with permits, they can go ahead and let them work and they don't have to immediately file on the 25th if he hasn't got you know if the inspector shows that there's progress being made, then they can like counsel said they can work through the permit and not start accruing fines.

It would be up to the inspector to for that paperwork.

The one question I have is or what we'd like to know, and you could probably know that by next meeting, is are they required to collect correct code violations before they get the grant?

Okay.

This would be dependent on the grant program.

Yeah, CRA has a lot of different grant programs.

Some of them are so we can't uh contingent on federal requirements and things.

I'd have to know what program they're okay looking at and then be able to look at those particular program levels.

That would expedite it a little bit, but um you know, 60, 90 days.

You said one to three months to, you know, so if you want to come back to two months and then ask for another month, you know, or we can just well that'll that'll be dependent on what the inspector finds in on March 25th, you know.

If she goes out there and sees that there's you know, he's got the roof permit, and she sees stuff happening and progress is being made, then she doesn't have to fill out her uh with affidavit of non-compliance.

She doesn't have to fill that paper start that paperwork.

You know, she can come back to you know and say, hey, there's she doesn't have to come back to us.

If we don't see it on our docket, then we don't we know that he's there must be progress being made.

You know, so and if not, she'll be here on the 25th saying with an affidavit of non-compliance for us to you know approve, and then the fines will start back, you know.

Well, that's the middle ground.

Yeah, so he has a question.

Uh I'm getting a little confused.

We're we're we could go out tomorrow and and make the building safe.

Uh and secure all that.

As far as painting and fixing the stucco and all that, and even the roof, that's expensive.

And we'd like to certainly qualify for the grant if that's possible.

Now I understand there's different grants and there's different scenarios with the grant.

We have been led to believe that that the grant was is going to be issued regardless of whether there's code violations or not.

But within a couple of months, we're gonna know one way or the other where we're gonna get the grant.

It may not they might not grant the grant in two months, it may take a little longer to for the paperwork because I understand the city council has to sign off on the grant after it's approved, and that may take a cycle of 30 days.

So I think our even the grant, even the grants approved.

I believe this majority of the grants have to be signed off by city council.

Well, I think I think our general understanding is that is there if there's moving movement in that direction, yeah, yeah.

Um we're going to give you a city has the opportunity the code compliance, yeah, and the city has the the uh ability to give you some latitude.

Yeah, so cool, good.

So even though we set a date on this, that you still have it all depends on attitude.

What your inspector comes out and finds on the 25th of June.

We just we'd like a we'd like a working relationship.

That's what we like to do.

Yeah, of course.

Definitely.

Mr.

Chairman, I'll also add that if the board does find the violation impose a deadline today, it wouldn't it like you said, it would not come back if we did not file the affidavit of noncompliance.

Um, but if we did file the affidavit of noncompliance, that would come before you all, and we have had situations where uh you know, even though that that's a straight determination, was it in violation on that day or not?

Um we've had the board have questions and we've we've postponed decisions on accepting those affidavits um pending the outcome of those questions that the board had.

So that that would be another option, and that gives the city at least the the assurance of having some kind of hard deadline um in place.

Okay because one more thing.

If that if you go through with that, the compliance may not happen for 10 months or so, but we're as long as you're in in in contact with this lady right here, then you know she's got she's controls the pen stroke of that affidavit of non-compliance.

So in 60, if we give you 60 days and she comes out there and you haven't done nothing, and there's more stuff falling off the building, she's gonna write that affidavit non-compliance.

Well, but see, nothing.

So what but I need a little more direction as to what what is what what exterior surfaces and roof maintenance.

That's I I can't make it any clearer than that.

So in 60 days, if we go that route, you need to show some sort of improvement in your roof and your exterior surfaces, and that will be up to her to determine.

You know, if it's because we're not we can't we can't put it out for a year, two years until like I said, there's too much gray area here, doctor.

You know, that we can't just leave up in the air, you know.

We have to, you know, we're we work for the all the citizens of Clearwater, not just you know, one person that owns a building.

I understand.

Well, I mean we could we could show up, we can plug the holes in the roof and put the wood in and uh put put a few new shingles here and there and that'll whatever whatever you but it's not gonna it's not gonna look like it should, and this and the building isn't gonna look like it should because uh part of the part of the outside of the building is gonna be demoed anyway.

So I don't think you're understanding what we're saying as long as as long as she sees progress on the 25th of March.

I don't know what that progress would be.

You're you're you're throwing out a scenario that's not even happened yet.

Okay, and you're trying to gain more time, and and it's just not gonna happen.

You know, no we have 60 days is gonna be we'll make some movement, you know.

Don't have a problem with that.

All right, if I can get a second motion on that, I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before March 25th, 2026.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of 150 dollars per day for violation for each day, each violation continues to exist.

If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city's authorized foreclosed collectors settles such lien.

Second all in favor?

All right, second motion.

Thank you.

All right, next on our agenda is 3.9 case 03-26.

Fine respondents, Kathy Varrow at 1910 Union Street in violation of code for exterior services, roof maintenance, door and window openings, exterior storage, and public health safety and welfare nuisance.

Uh pool and issue an order with the compliance deadline if fine uh and compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

No, Inspector Casmin, you have the floor.

Hold on a second.

Give it a second.

It's loading in.

Good afternoon, board.

Daniel Kasman, code enforcement inspector for the city of Clearwater.

This is case number 03-26 for 1910 Union Street.1 and D5 for roof maintenance.

Code Section 3-1502 C1C3 and C4 for door and window maintenance.

Code Section 3-1503 B5 for hazardous pool.

Code Section 3-1502 G1, G2, and G3 for exterior storage.

These are the dates of the notices of violation were set out with the client state.

Did the affidavit of post in the same day of notice of violation with a notice of hearing posted for today's hearing on the 15th of this month?

This is 1910 Union Street.

I had noticed when I drove by that the uh garage door was falling out of the uh garage.

I got closer many items being stored outdoors in the premises, some damage to the fascia there on the garage.

A next door neighbor called me and complained about the rear of the property.

Uh there was much stuff being stored outdoors, and there's also damage again to the fascia and the soffits, some of the exterior pool was green.

Uh this is the date of my affidavits of posting on the 14th of October.

This is my uh pictures of the compliance date afterward, garage door still damaged, falling out, damaged the the uh roof there in the rear, hole in the side of the building, uh damage to the roof and soffits.

The pool hasn't been cleaned, all the items are still in the yard.

This was the uh notice of hearing for today's hearing on the 15th posted.

It's a closer look up front.

Here were the photos of today, pretty much the same.

Some damage there, roof corner, the rear of the property is still in the same shape, still got a hole in the wall up there, and the pool still hasn't been cleaned.

So it's been met for the exterior surface by repairing any damage, removing any trip-to peeling paint, repairing repainting are necessary.

It's met for the roof maintenance by repairing any damage in the roof fashion and soffits.

Plans met for door and window maintenance by repairing the garage door, repairing replacing any damaged windows or doors, appliance made up for the hazardous pool by cleaning the pool and ensuring the water is clear by draining the pool completely.

Compliance met for exterior storage by removing from the grounds of the property any appliances, furniture, buckets, bins, tires, shopping carts, motors, and other miscellaneous items not met for outdoor use.

And I'm requesting appliance out of before February 28th, 2026, or a fine of 150 per day per violation for each day.

The violations continue to exist.

Have you is there anyone at the property?

The story I've gotten from neighbors and people in the neighborhood is that the uh property was owned by a Gabriel Varro, and he had a wife and a son, and Gabriel passed away.

The wife's name is Kathy Varrow, and Gabriel uh Jr.

resides at the property, but Kathy Varrow is incapacitated in some way, and uh one really does anything with it.

Uh Gabriel just lives there with some other people, and their property is also in foreclosure right now, but I decided probably another reason they're not so it's probably what's gonna end up happens to be gonna come in possession of the property and probably take care of the violations, but I just want to make sure they were addressed and the neighbors also had complaints about them.

Okay, do you have any board?

Do we have any questions for Inspector Caskin?

No, can I get a first motion?

Do we want to change the date from uh 28th to the 25th when the board meets?

I was just given 30 days for its third days out from today.

Yeah, I don't know if that's I wasn't trying to do it off the meeting.

That pushes us into the next meeting.

I mean, I don't have a problem with I mean, do you have a problem with 27 days or 28 days instead of 30?

Well, I don't mind either way.

It's just when I go to file the affidavit of noncompliance, if they don't come to compliance, you're not going to hear it at next month's meeting anyway.

Yeah.

Right.

That's gonna still be a good one.

You won't hear it until the following reading.

Okay.

So it doesn't matter.

Then it doesn't matter.

Okay.

So I get a first motion.

I move to find the responder in violation of the code is referred to in the affidavit in this case.

I second it.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

First motion carries.

You get a second.

I move to enter an order requiring a respondent to correct the violations on or before February 28th.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of 150 dollars per day for violation for each day.

Each violation continues to exist.

If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized for closed collectors settle search lean.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

All right, second motion carries.

Next case is uh 3.10 on our agenda case number 04-26.

Fine respondents.

Uh lee Coriel estate at 315 North Corona Avenue in violation of code for roof maintenance and issue an order with the compliance deadline and find if compliance is not made.

Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

No, Inspector Casper, you have the floor.

Good afternoon again, board Daniel Casman, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater.

This is case number four-26 for 315 North Corona Avenue.

There's one violation here for code section 3-1502 D1 and D3 for roof maintenance.

These are the dates the notes of violation went out.

The affidavit of post and being done at the same day the notes of violation.

I understood that the gentleman here had passed and I was in contact with someone claiming to be one of his heirs.

They did end up maintaining the yard and putting the address on the property.

And I wasn't talking with them about the roof and what they were planning on doing with it, and then I haven't spoken with them since.

They haven't tried to get back in contact with me.

But this is 315 North Corona Avenue.

If you notice there, there's a fair amount of pine needles on the roof, but at the upper left, you see there's a tarp.

It's being held on with logs on that portion of the roof.

This is a look from the side.

Well, I'm gonna assume maybe the end of that pine tree, but you look in the back, there's a heavy mat of pine needles that's been accumulating on the rear of the property for a while.

Yeah, yeah.

On that roof.

That's roofs.

Um they still had the large mat of pine needles, and they still haven't repaired that section on the roof.

Here's the notice of the posting or the notice of hearing for today's hearing on the 15th.

And then uh from this morning, same issues with the property.

So compliance meant for the roof maintenance by removal of the tarp from the roof of the home and repair any damage to the roof.

Removal of all pine needles and branches from the roof of the home.

And I'm requesting compliance on before February 28th, 2026, or a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation for each day violation continues to exist.

Board, do we have any questions for inspector?

No.

Can I have a first motion?

And move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

First motion carries.

Second.

I move to answer an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before February 28th.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation for each day.

Each violation continues to exist.

If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Second motion carries.

All right.

Uh-huh.

Next case is three uh dash one one on our agenda case 05-26.

Find respondents Thomas Rikovsky at 1384 Seabree Street in violation code for parking lot services.

And issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

No, Inspector Jensen, you have this floor.

Good afternoon, board.

Uh Dave Jensen, code inspector of the city of Clearwater.

This is uh case 0526 at 1384 Seabrees.

I have one violation for 31502K4.

Uh, it has to do with parking lot surfaces and driveway surfaces.

Uh I put in the language for that ordinance in here so you can take a look at it as it's not something we deal with on a regular basis.

Basically, owners have to keep uh driveways, parking lots clear of obstructions, etc., so they can be used for their intended purpose.

Um this property has been an issue on several different fronts.

Um he is currently just over $526,000 in liens against the property accruing at $450 a day.

You'll recognize the property when I bring it up here.

These are the dates of the notices uh that were sent.

This is the property in question.

You have heard it before for the motor home being parked where it's at, uh some other things here.

Uh conversations with each in-person conversations with each other about the property and the things he's done there, this being one of them.

You can see his driveway.

Our right of way for the city is actually right about in here.

So he's only got this much driveway left, and he has blocked the rest of it off with railroad ties and uh palm trees.

He did have numerous uh conversations as well through emails with our zoning department.

Uh one of those uh subjects at our zoning department was actually ahead of zoning.

Uh, he had finally had to inject himself into the conversation with one of our zoning people about the use of the parking lot uh because he said he was going to start using it as a patio, and that's one of the reasons he's put these out here.

Unfortunately, not only is he blocked it off with uh the railroad ties, but now the trees, as you'll see here, are starting to die.

Some of these had out in the front lawn are dead as well.

So this is the rest of his parking area up here, uh which he has blocked off and is now on usable.

This is uh back on December 4th.

You see how uh overgrown some of the stuff has gotten.

There's grass that you'll see in a picture here that is long and overgrown out from underneath the railroad ties.

Uh this is the condition uh on the 27th of this month.

As you can see, uh, these are not being taken care of, they're dying off or dead.

This is yesterday as well.

This footboard was out in the middle of the yard yesterday.

It's since found its way up into the driveway area.

This is the overgrowth in the junk that's starting to uh or has been accumulating in front of the railroad ties uh from the street side, more of that junk, dead debris, and everything else uh obstructing the parking surface.

Uh that's the footboard, and you can see the condition of these palms are uh not doing very well.

Uh compliance can be met for the parking lot surfaces with the driveway and parking surface uh must be clear of obstructions, barriers, plants, trees, any other objects that would include the use of the parking service as approved in the original site plan.

Uh requesting compliance on report 220 of 26 or a fine of 150 dollars per day for each day the violation continues to exist.

Any questions for Inspector Jansen board?

I don't have any questions on that.

I remember this property though.

I do have one question.

Uh based on our experience prior to this, it it am I correct in thinking that the owner just doesn't care to comply or just wants to do what he wants to do.

I'm not correct.

I've tried to read this thing.

To say that I've had numerous conversations and emails back and forth with him and again with our our zoning and everyone else.

Um if you remember uh when the motor home was part there, there were conversations that was really uh in our vehicle.

He did put a plate on it, brought it up to date.

However, um he left it part there.

He said he was gonna have a parking surface put down.

I told him that he would have to get a permit, but due to where it's at, right on the property line, etc.

He may not be able to get that.

Can we put pavers down or something like that?

Next, yeah, so the next thing you know they weren't even actual pavers, they're the they're the uh three by three or four by four piece that your exterior air conditioner heater sets up.

So they are in pavers.

He put those under there, and then he wrapped the bottom of the voter home in a tarp or some material to hide what he'd done there.

It's just been everything that he's done on the property.

I've tried to warn him ahead of time and told him you're not allowed to do that, or is this gonna cause further issues, and he's just gone ahead and done it.

We've had absolutely no luck getting him to bring the property into compliance.

Um, and obviously, again, you know, he's well over half a million dollars in in liens for other violations.

So unfortunately, it's this is where we are.

I've had neighbors complain about the property that's where this all started at.

Um, have a neighbor across the street that's trying to sell their houses, they've retired and want to move out of the area, and when I've been down there, they've come out and expressed their aggravation on the fact that it looks the way it does.

So hopefully we can give them some affirmative relief today.

Hopefully, board, do you have any um questions?

Any more questions for Inspector Jensen?

No.

Can I get a first motion?

I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

First motion carries.

Can I give a second?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before February 20th, 2026.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of 150 per day per violation for each day.

Each violation continues to exist.

If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or send such line.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Thank you, Inspector Jansen.

Next case is 3.12 on our agenda, case 06-26.

Find respondents.

MH Clearwater 395 Holdings LLC and 395 Coronado Drive in violation of code for prohibited signage and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

No, Inspector Berghardt, yeah, floor.

Good afternoon, board.

Stephen Burkhard, Sign Inspector for City of Clearwater.

That case uh six- uh six-26 is in compliance as of today.

I would ask the board for uh declaration or violation.

Can I get a declaration of violation?

I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing, and to enter an order that no fine be imposed.

If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to 500 for each day.

The violation continues to exist.

Second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

All right.

Motion carries.

Next case is 3.13 on our agenda case 07-26.

Fine respondents.

Mary G Realty Inc.

at 490 Mandalay Avenue in violation of code for sign maintenance and issue an order with compliance deadline and final compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak for to that case?

No.

Inspector Burkett, you have the floor.

Stephen Burkhardt, sign inspector for the city of Clearwater.

This is case 7-26 or 490 Mandalay Avenue.

There are two violations.

First violation is regarding Code Section 3-1806A, temporary sign criteria and limitations.

The other violation is regarding sign maintenance.

That's code section 3-1502.

Notice of violation was mailed July 29, 25.

But certified mail was not signed.

So that's why I posted the property in September 425th, and compliance date was October 6th, 25th.

So the first violation regarding temporary signage is uh was about banner signs.

So as you see here, uh a banner sign can be displayed for up to one month per year per parcel.

So one sign for up to one month.

It's just a temporary sign, it can't be the longer than 30 days.

And that sign was that picture is taken in June 9 of last year.

And as you see, that's the picture is from September 4th.

The sign is still there, the exact same sign.

That was in uh December 6, 25, and um there's another sign uh displayed, so there are no two banner signs advertising for that business.

You see that's the other sign still there.

Um as of today, the sign all signs have been removed, so there's no banner signs anymore.

So cases in compliance for that.

The second um second uh case is regarding sign maintenance.

The second sorry, the second violation was regarding sign maintenance of the freestanding sign for the plaza.

As you see, there's rust and peeling paint on the pole.

There's more rust on top of the pole, the sign, so sign needs to be um the rust needs to be removed and the structure painted.

The picture is from today, is no maintenance being done, still rust and peeling paint visible as you see in the lower part of the sign, still the same situation.

I um attempted to speak with the property owner.

I spoke with the tenant Clear Sky.

The manager Stephen gave me the number of um Nick is his name.

He's supposed to be the property owner responsible for property.

I called him.

There's no voicemail that's been set up or anything, no answer.

So I just the only contact I had was through the posting basically of the property.

So I had no direct contact with the property owner.

Uh compliance for the free standing sign in need of maintenance can be met by repairing or removing the sign and the sign structure.

Or repairing or removing.

So that would be the option basically just to paint it or remove the remove the rust.

That would be the ideal solution for that.

You can also demolish the sign if you want.

Compliance for the banner sign can be met by removing the banner and refrain from re-erecting run until all the criteria and limitations can be abided by.

So the banner sign has been removed, so it's in compliance, so I asked for declaration of violation for that violation.

Okay.

So for the other for the sign maintenance, it still needs to be painted.

So recommendations for the case 0726.

Is uh the temporary sign violation don't exist anymore, so it's in compliance, it's a declaration of violation.

And for the sign maintenance is still needs to be maintained.

Requesting compliance on or before February 28, 26.

If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of 150 dollars per day.

Each day the violation continues to exist.

I have a question.

The Mary G Realty Inc.

the owner of the plaza, are they responsible for those banner signs?

Yes, sir.

Oh, are they?

Okay.

I didn't know if the business was responsible for them or if they were.

No, uh, I all the cases the the two cases get going against the property owner.

Okay, there are several tenants.

There were previously other tenants who had banners erected, but that's all the same.

So if if another tenant uh starts to put banners out, it's the same violation.

But I talked, I talk with clear sky, of course.

I talk with individual businesses, but it's still the property owners responsible.

No worries.

Um you have any questions on this one?

I do not.

Mr.

Strickland, Mr.

King.

Nope.

Um we'll do uh a declaration on the uh on the sign on the banner signs.

Yeah, and then we'll do the other one for the sign maintenance.

So someone wants to do that.

All right, regarding the banner signs uh on this violation.

I moved to find the respondent was in violation of the code is referred to in the affidavit in this case.

The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing, and to enter an order that no fine be imposed.

If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day.

The violation continues to exist.

So all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Alright, that motion carries.

All right.

Regarding the permanent sign on this case, I move to find the respondent in violation of the code is referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Second it.

All in favor?

Aye.

Motion carries.

Second.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before February 28th.

If the respondent does not comply with that date, the board may enter may order a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation for each day.

Each violation continues to exist.

If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

That motion carries.

Alright, next case is 3.14 on our agenda case 08-26.

Fine respondents.

Nicoleta Pasaltis Y building 642 LLC and Anastas Anastasius Anistopolis at 636 South Gulf view Gulf View Boulevard in violation of code for sidewalk signs and signs without permits and issue an order with the compliance deadline and find if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

Will you come forward, sir?

To the podium, sir, yes.

If you would, would you state your name and address?

I'm the last one.

Anastasios Anasopolis, and it's 246 Bay Side Drive, Clearwater, Florida.

33767.

I'm sorry if I chopped up your name.

Yeah, no, no, it's long name or Mr.

Anistopoulos.

Do you admit or deny the bio?

Yeah, I'm a landlord, but yeah, my tenant has those signs, yes.

You admit it.

Yeah, okay.

If you'll have a seat right there.

Can I get a first motion, please?

I move to find the respondent in violation of the code is referred to in the affidavit in this case.

So all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Alright, first motion carries.

Inspector Burkhart, you have the floor.

All right, Stephen Burkert, sign inspector for the city of Clearwater.

This case uh 08-26 for 636 go through boulevard.

Two violations.

Um first violation is regarding code section 3-1806A.

Temporary sign criteria limitations.

Second violation is regarding code section 4-1002 signage without permits.

And um there was one uh there was one uh sidewalk sign erected.

Um that's code section 3-1804J.

The sidewalk sign had no permit.

That's the violation.

Um, as of today, the sidewalk sign is not there anymore.

I took on the picture, so it's just the declaration of violation for that one.

The other so the the notice of violation being mailed in July 2nd, 25.

Um, there was no certified mail, so I posted the property in August 13 last year.

Compliance date was September 12, 25.

So that's the uh violation regarding uh the second violation, the banner signs.

Uh there are three banner signs at the building for longer for more than 30 days.

As you see here, homemade Italian ice cream, gelato coffee, and that's of me banner signs are still there.

That was the sidewalk sign.

Meanwhile, it's been removed.

That was December.

That was today.

The signs are all still there.

I spoke with the tenant, and he said I that goes back for that goes back a while actually before even I started the case.

I started to talk with him about the signage.

He said he wants to um erect permanent signage, but that costs money, and uh so I was giving him more time, and at one point it opened the case because um I understand that permanent signs is more expensive than the banners, but still want to be in compliance with the code.

Again, the sidewalk sign is not there anymore.

There was that picture was taken today.

Compliance for the sidewalk sign can be met by removing the sign or obtain a permit, but I'm asking for declaration violation.

Compliance for the banner sign can be met by removing the banners and refrain from re-erecting one until all the criteria and imitations can be abided by do you have any questions for Mr.

Burkhart?

No.

Mr.

Anistopolis, if you want to come back up.

Just a second.

So what do we got going on here?

I just thought about I got a I think uh certified letter last month.

So I was kind of unaware of it, and I spoke with my tenant uh this week, how to remove the sidewalk sign.

I wasn't aware of the multiple sign uh violation.

If you could explain to me what he's allowed, and is it one size allowed?

Is it all three signs are allowed?

I'm not sure on that, so I could tell them what what he has to do.

What do you guys remove?

Um I would refer that to Inspector Burkhart.

I'll talk to the tenant to make sure he comes into compliance.

I just I was aware I wasn't aware of it.

So from a previous case that we had today about a banner sign, I believe it was 30 days for and then you have to take it down, and that's one time a year you can do that.

Okay, and but other than that, you would have to speak with him.

So um I'll make sure it could come to compliance.

Everything will be you can have everything done by the 28th of that.

Okay, all right.

Can I uh get a declaration for the sidewalk signs?

Yes, and then we'll address the second part.

I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case for the sidewalk sign.

The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed.

If the respondent repeats the violation, then the board may order a fine of up to 500 each day.

The sign the violation continues to exist.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

All right, that motion carries, and then our next one.

Okay, regarding the banner signs, I move to find the respondent in violation of the code is referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

First motion carries.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before January 28th.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of up to 150 dollars per day for violation for each day.

Each violation continues to exist.

If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized for close collect or settle such lien.

Change that from January 28th to February 28th, sir.

Is that what I said?

Yes, sir.

I'll re give the motion.

I move to enter an order requiring a respondent to correct the violations on or before February 28th.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of up to uh of 150 dollars per day per violation for each age violation continues to exist.

If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized for close, collect, or settle such lien.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Second motion.

Thank you, sir.

I was gonna say he would already been involved.

Thank you.

Yeah, uh okay.

Uh our next uh item is 3.15 on our agenda, which has been continued to February.

So our next one is 3.16, case 10-26.

Fine respondents, true North Property Owner A LLC at 3404, Brigadoon Drive in violation of code for exterior services, and issue an order to compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on that?

If you'll come forward, sir to the podium.

Are you doing will you state your name and address for to our clerk for the record?

It's uh Justin McCurlis, 4721, 3rd Avenue North, St.

Petersburg, 33713.

Uh McCrillis, MC C R I L L I S.

Thank you.

Mr.

McCrillis, are uh do you admit or deny the violation?

Admit.

You admit it?

All right, if you'll have a seat there.

Can I have a first motion, please?

Remove to find the respondent violation of the code is referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

First motion carries.

Inspector Daniels, you have the good afternoon, boy.

Inspector Daniels, City of Clearwater Cold Inspector.

I'm bringing to you uh 3404 Brigadoon Drive, case number 10-26.

It's one violation at this property.

Cold section 3-1502.

B for exterior surfaces.

Notice of violation was sent out on April 16th, 2025.

With a compliance date of uh May 21st, 25, and certified mail was received on 428-25.

This is what's going on at the property.

The siding needs to be replaced.

And that was on 415.

That was on 1201 and down a little lower now.

You got a piece falling off now.

And then this was this morning.

Compliance can be met for exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structures and decorative elements of any building walls and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose materials, and fade in a pill and paint.

Uh requesting compliance on or before March 1st, 2026.

If not fine of 150 per day per violation if compliance is not met.

Alright.

Come back to the site.

You think you can get this all done by the first of March?

Yes.

Yeah, I we definitely should be able to.

You know, I apologize.

I don't know what happened to the letter.

I've talked about this just recently.

Um there, I'm gonna go out there right after I'm done.

Um the only issue that I would see is that just if they start pulling that stuff off, if there's more on the inside, um, but I can keep him updated.

Yeah, I just say keep your inspector updated if you do pull some of that in the middle.

March first should be a problem.

Okay, all right.

Thank you, sir.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh-huh.

Can I have a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before March 1st, 2026.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation for each day, each violation continues to exist.

If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose collect or settle such lien.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Second motion carries.

All right, next case is 3.17 on our agenda case 11-26.

Find respondents Hannah Bacara and Medea Ebert Ibrahim, Ibrahim at 4004 Brigadoon Circle in code via in violation of code for fences and walls and exterior services and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on that one?

You'll come forward, sir.

Good afternoon.

If you'll state your name and address for the record, please.

Your address.

7823 in Mistletoe Court.

Newboration floor by 345653.

34653.

I do you admit or deny the violations today?

Admit them?

Yes.

Okay.

If you'll have a seat right over there.

We'll get back to you in just a bit.

Um can I have a first motion, please?

I moved to find the respondent violation of the code is referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

First motion carries.

Get out of the move.

City of Clearwater Code Inspector.

This is for address 4004 Brigadoon Drive, case number 11-26.

There's two violations at this property.

Cold section 3-1502.b for exterior surfaces.

Code section 3-808 for fence maintenance.

The notice was sent out on uh April 18th, 2025 with a compliance date of May 21st, 2025.

Certified mail was received on May 6, 2025.

There you got a little wood.

Damage to the wood.

Uh some wood was replaced, touched up, but never repainted.

Got some rotten wood down here.

Uh this was the fence, but they moved the fence.

They moved this piece of fence.

And this is more of the fence that's broken.

Uh this was on 12.4.

The wood still missing.

Part of the fence is gone, but still the rotted wood is there and starting to get a little surface mildew.

The wood is still the same in the back.

Still the same.

As of this morning, wood still missing.

Rotten wood.

Wouldn't need to be painted.

And the fence is still in the same condition.

Compliance can be met for the exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structure and decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose materials, and fading of pill and paint.

Compliance can be met for fence maintenance by replacing any rotten or broken boards.

Make sure all posts or footers are solid and make sure that the fence is in a vertical position, not sagging or leaning more than 10 degrees from vertical.

We are city requesting compliance on of the four March 1st, 2026, or a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation if compliance is not met.

Thank you, sir.

You want to come back up, sir?

Is um are you able to be able to get this stuff like taken care of by March the first?

Yeah.

I'll definitely do my best.

It's just me doing uh everything because my dad is just um he's not doing well right now with my mom by myself.

So I would uh please ask for like 30 more days if that's okay uh for the court.

Um but I would definitely try to do it by March 1st.

Yeah, because it because this they were uh you guys were notified back in uh last April.

I know my dad had a stroke in April, and uh it's been a tough time for us because he's been hospitalized for uh more than two months, and we were just uh with him doing that.

I'm sorry to hear that about your father.

I hope he's doing better.

Thank you.

Um board, do you have any questions for the uh mail?

No, I do not do you have any board do we have any problem with extending it out?

Does the city have do you have any problems extending it out 30 days to give up time?

Board, is that sound okay?

Sure to you guys so instead of three would be four one.

Um yeah, I'd say four, yeah, four one, April 1st.

So okay, we're gonna extend it out until April the first for you and let's try to get this stuff taken care of.

Thank you.

Your parents will love you for it.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll go ahead and all right.

I moved to enter an order requiring a respondent to correct the violations on her before April 1st, 2026.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation for each day violation continues to exist.

If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Second motion carries.

All right.

Next case is 3.18 on our agenda, case number 12-25.

Find respondents.

Michael Karen Thomas at 123 North Glenwood Avenue in violation of code for permits and issue an order of compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

No.

Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, Code Board.

I'm Inspector Kat Reese with the City of Clearwater.

This is for case one to one twelve-26 at 123 Glenwood Avenue.

You have one violation on this property for permits required.

Section 4-203.a dot one.

No person shall commence any construction, demolition, modification, or ratification of a building or structure without first obtaining a permit.

This is specifically permit for masonry work done on the front of the property.

I did speak with the property Michael this morning.

He is in Colden, New Hampshire.

He advised me that he has worked on getting a GC hired to pull a permit.

He did request a 60 day rather than a 30.

I have no objection to that.

If you want to just see everything real quickly, but we are now in communication as of this morning.

So the notice of violations were sent.

First one June 27th of 2025.

First, we had three different compliance dates, and certified mail was signed on August 20th of 2025.

And this is the just in reference for the uh where the property is, is just south of Jerusalem and east of Highland Avenue.

It is the corner house right there.

This is a Google photo image from 2019.

And this was my inspection picture, and you can see where the masonry work.

It was basically AC that was that was removed from the wall, and they filled it in.

So it's it's nothing too complicated.

However, he does have more issues on the property, so he just wants to get it all encompassed on with this with everything at once, which is why he was requesting more time.

And compliance can be met by obtaining an issue permit and completing the permit six months from issuance.

Um so originally I was recommending.

Oh, I did change it.

I'm sorry, excuse me.

So I am recommending if to be in agreement with him that a permit is obtained by March 28th of 2026 and completion of a permit six months from the issuance of said permit.

If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of 150 dollars per day each day the violation continues to exist.

Did you um did you want uh another 30 days out from this March 28?

No, I've already yes.

Originally I would have done naturally 30 days, but you're in contact with him, so everything's gonna start flowing.

Hopefully, but in case it doesn't, that's why I still wanted to present it.

Okay.

Um can I get a first motion?

Move to find the respondent in violation of the code is referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

First motion carries.

Can I have a second motion?

I move to enter an order requiring a respondent to correct the violations on or before March 28, 2026.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of 150 dollars per day for violation.

For each day, each violation continues to exist.

Fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed.

The city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Second motion carries.

Uh 3.19 on our agenda is continued until April 22nd.

Uh 3.20 is also continued to March 25th.

The next up is 3.21 on our agenda, case 15-25.

Fine respondents, Weston Road Investments, Columbus LLC at 705 Vine Avenue in violation for code permits and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

No.

Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Hello again, Code Board.

Um, Inspector Kat Reese for the City of Clearwater.

This is for a 705 Vine Avenue, case number 15-26.

We have one violation here for permits required, uh, specifically the permit for the interior remodel, which was to include plumbing on the property.

Uh the first notice of violation was sent April 16th of 2025, and the final on May 30th of 2025.

Uh first compliance date was May 6th of 2025 with the final of June 20th of 2025.

Certified mail was signed on April 21st, 2025.

I also went on this property when the um contractors were on site, so I did issue a stop work order on the property.

Okay, so in reference to location, this is gonna be just east of North Myrtle Avenue, south of Seminole Street.

And that was my stop work order that was given to the contractor on site.

This is what the property looked like when I approached the property.

So clearly, this a lot of work going on inside.

Just put it out the back.

So it's a lot of drywall.

Uh you know, it's it's not too much.

I know it looks like a lot more than it really is, but um mainly it was the drywall and the bathroom that's being done and new plumbing connections in the bathroom, so that is why the plumbing will be required as well.

Drywall all the way up to the ceiling.

And new framing on the doors there.

So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit, six months from issuance date.

I have not had any communication from the property owner.

Um well, in June of June 18th of 2025, I did speak with a Randall, who was not happy to speak with me.

He disconnected our phone call, and I have not heard from him since.

So I don't foresee.

I'm actually surprised they let you in to take pictures.

Uh yeah, he did.

Most of the time, contractors are not they're not wanting to put up a fight.

Then I I understand that they're just doing a job and they you know they know that's what they're there to do.

They know better.

So I am requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before February 28, 2026, and completion of permit six months from the issuance date of said permit.

If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of 150 dollars per day each day the violation continues to exist.

All right.

Do you have any questions, board?

No, can I get a first motion?

I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

First motion carries.

Can I have a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring a responder to correct the violations on or before February 28th.

If the responder does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation for each day.

If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Second motion carries.

All right, next case is 3-22 on our agenda, case 16-26.

Fine respondents, Anita, Miss Jardins at 1387 Mission Hills Boulevard, Unit 39B, in violation of code for permits and issue and order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

Ma'am, would you come forward to the podium, please?

If we could just have a correction, the violation is actually a housing violation, not uh for permits.

I'm not sure.

Yeah.

Okay.

Can you state your name and address for the record, please?

Anita Deshardan, uh 1387.

Clearwater.

Mr.

Johnny's, do you admit or deny the violation?

You admit it?

Okay, if you'll have a seat right there, we'll we'll hear from the city and then we'll get back to you.

Thank you so much.

Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Hello again, board.

Um, this is uh cat Inspector Kat Reese, code uh case number 16-26.

This is for 1387 Mission Hills Boulevard, unit 39B is in Bravo.

We have one violation here.

It is a housing violation under the International Property Maintenance Code, Section 702.1.

A safe continuous path of travel shall be provided from any point in a building or structure to the public way.

We have the first notice of violation that was given from our previous inspector uh July 29th of 2024.

My final notice was sent July 31st of 2025.

She has had uh multiple compliance dates.

These are just the ones that are matching with the notice of violations.

Certified mill was signed on August 8th of 2024.

So this is going to be uh the condos that are south of 590, just in right where Johnny's uh Italian restaurant is just to give you reference.

Straight down is the whole the whole neighborhood there.

This is the approach to the um to Miss Anita's condo.

Um give you more reference.

This is her front door.

So this came in with from the previous inspector who did go out there with police and um a bunch of different entities to try to assist Miss Anita.

Um it was in reference to emergency services that could not really gain access to her home.

Um so that is the current that was the state on the initial inspection of what it appeared.

That is the front door.

Um it does not swing open all the way, which is why we are here today.

So I will I will breeze through these quickly to just you know afford her to not have her whole place shown.

But compliance can be met by generating a safe continuous path of travel to be provided from any point in the building or structure to the public way.

So more specifically, the door, the front door, because it opens inward, that has to have a clear opening.

That is what we are focused on here today.

Um there are other cases with the HOA that are being taken to court for the remainder of it.

So I don't um excuse my that's probably why you had permits, Nicole.

It's my fault.

I am sorry.

So this is in reference reference to the housing violation for a means of egress.

We're requesting compliance by generating a clear path of egress and or travel on or before February 27, 2026, and a reinspection with with myself be completed on or before February 27, 2026.

If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of 150 dollars per day each day the violation continues to exist.

Okay, board, do you have any questions?

Um I don't know if it's your only concern, but your main concern for compliance is that the front door opened fully.

Right.

That's anything else is beyond that.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Everything, I'll get everything.

That's it.

If file breakout, huh?

You'd be uh no, I got depressed.

I understand that happens.

I I I completely get it, and we're not here to try to shame you or anything like that.

We just want you to be safe.

And you'll get to you'll get that all cleaned out for us.

All right, for you too.

We don't want to see any any anything happen to you.

All right, thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

Can I get a first motion, please?

I'm gonna define the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

First motion carries and she'll and you keep in contact with her and she's thank you so much today.

I just wanted to do the addresser so she can see it.

Can I have a second, please?

I move to enter an order requiring the responder to correct the violations on or before February 27th, 2026.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of 150 dollars per day for violation for each day.

Each violation continues to exist.

If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city's authorized for a closed collect or sell such lien.

So all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Second motion carried.

All right, our next case 3.23 has been withdrawn.

Uh 3.24 on our agenda, case number 18-26.

Fine respondents Wolf Empire LLC at 1738 North Fort Harrison Avenue in violation of code for permits.

An issue and order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on that?

Would you come forward, sir?

I was talking on the top of my yes.

Okay.

Did I say the wrong thing?

No, no.

No, we I tried to confirm if this was state your name and address for the record.

Uh 821 Riverview Lane, Tarp and Springs.

Mr.

Blyth, do you admit?

Blythe.

Mr.

Blyth, do you uh admit or deny the violations today?

I don't know what the violations are.

Okay.

That would be a denial.

So that would be a denial.

Okay, we'll have a seat right there.

And the city's gonna present their their what they have, and then we'll call you back up.

Okay, sir.

All right.

Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Okay, I'm Inspector Kat Reese with the City of Clearwater.

This is for case 18-26 at 1738 North Fort Harrison Avenue.

We have one violation here for permits required specifically for the interior remodel done on the property.

We had uh three notice of violations that were sent.

March 18th, 2025 being the first, the final on April 30th of 2025, three separate separate compliance dates.

I did have certified mail signed on March 27th of 2025.

And now I'm sure you all know where North Fort Harrison is, but there you go.

Um so just to give you I did pull up a Zillow posting of what the property used to look like inside.

It you as you can see from the entrance, it does have drop ceilings, um, a wall here with the windows, more drop ceilings throughout the entire property, just to give you uh we're more focused on the front of the property, which would be that the this area here, and throughout this area here, and then sort of go back to my slide.

Okay.

Um so as of today, there is no permit on file.

I just wanted to give reference for that.

Um this is the property upon my inspection.

As you can see, that there's a truss there, there's no more drop ceilings, there's electric that's been added to the ceiling.

There's been no no permits for any of this work.

Okay.

And that's just more pictures.

It's very difficult with the uh reflection, so I apologize for that.

Compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit.

City has requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before February 28, 2026, and the completion of said permit six months from issuance of the permit.

Now, did you have to do a stop work order on this one too?

Also, I no, I did not because the work was already done, so I just went ahead and sent the notice of violations out.

Um for this property.

I I I have been in contact with him, but not in reference to this particular property.

Um, I and the LLC is not under the same name as this other property, so I could that's why I asked him today, but I got the numerics wrong when I asked him, so that's why he didn't confirm it that time.

Okay, Mr.

Blythe, would you come back up, sir?

Looks like they got some work with no permits.

Okay, uh, I've purchased the property.

The only thing we have done to the property is scrape the windows clean, paint the inside, and clean up the outside and paint the outside.

We we uh you know I've been done whenever I spoke to the city whenever I guess this first came up.

I thought they had just said okay, because I didn't do anything to the building.

And I bought it it was like this.

Yeah.

When did you purchase it?

Yeah, when did you purchase it?

What date?

23 20 20 uh 2023, 2024, somewhere around here.

I don't know exactly.

We've we've we purchased it because we own the property adjacent to it, and it came up for sale and part of the purchase.

That's that's the property had it had tenants in it.

It had people living there whenever I purchased it, and of course, I it's not wasn't uh zoned residential, so I got rid of them, but other than that, all I've done is scraped the windows clean, cleaned up the property.

It had uh it looked really bad outside, so we fixed it up and painted it, and I didn't think I needed a permit to paint and clean up the property and scrape windows.

Um Inspector Reese, do you know when those pictures were taken on Zillow?

Does it have a date of anything?

Because this is gonna be really hard to you know um to say those was were or after 2023.

Well, much like any any violation in reference to permits, uh violations do not go with the property owner, it goes with the property.

So even if he did buy the property and it was not permitted, and we do come into light of the said violation, he is ultimately responsible for that.

But to answer your question, uh this little posting was let's see if we could find it.

I was just curious to you know not saying that you were not telling the truth, but I'm just curious to try to pause it.

I'm just trying to figure out the timeline, you know.

But like she said, it doesn't matter anyways.

It comes the violation is with the property, not with the with the purchase.

They're welcome to come.

Uh there's a date 2020 fifteen.

It looks like it would have been price history for the price history, correct?

15.

Yeah.

So yeah, very well could have all been done.

Well, those are sale dates though, so I don't know if those those apply to the pictures.

Yeah, there were there were people living here.

Uh they had at least there were people who live.

Of course, it's not zone residential, it was not by no way and compliance to be a residential dwelling.

And it's been vacant ever since I've originally did you have a title search, sir, when you purchased and the fines didn't come up from the city.

Are they I don't think there is money yet on this place?

Right.

There isn't had that if they if the purchase we we're just now bringing the case, so we just now became aware of it.

Uh we we do normally um consider this to be kind of a private issue when um when people when sellers as you know when sellers sell property they there's disclosures that they're supposed to make, and um so if they did work without a permit or something like that, then um they're supposed to disclose that to their buyers.

If if they fail to do that, that's really a civil matter between those two parties.

From the city's perspective, we just need to make sure that um you know the work is safe and code compliant.

Um I can't really speak for the building department exactly in terms of what they would want to see here, but um I'm sure you know, since the work's already completed, um we could, you know, if a contractor can you know give us some an affidavit or something like that, just to say that it's up to code, then it should be pretty straightforward getting the the permit.

I I don't want to speak to him to it too much, but I just hate to you know have Mr.

Black here, you know you know, him hung out to dry over somebody, you know, something that he didn't do, you know.

So that's right.

Um please is there Dana?

Could you come up, sir?

When I ask you a couple questions so we can figure out what like the building inspector can you give us some insight on this on this pro or like some like guidance on this property on what he would need as far as you know what the building like counselor said, what the uh like uh contractor can he come in and inspect it and sign off on it and and so how would this work?

Well, it would uh it seems to be a simple uh I guess a demo permit where the ceiling was taken out.

Uh probably um electrical was capped off.

Looks like there was some drywall work that was done that uh framing that was we'll call in the possible attic space with that vaulted ceiling is um so it would pretty much be a electrical final building final.

Uh we'd have to verify the uh screw pattern of the drywall, uh possible wall taken down.

See, that's what I'm trying not to.

I mean, you know, that's this is a tough one.

Well, it's uh because I don't think that he should be, you know, well, it is uh liability for all this.

I mean, if it didn't if there was no disclosure to him at you know, how's he supposed to know?

Well, he may have a call.

That's what I'm trying to find a middle ground here, right?

That's why I brought you up paying it to see if there was some sort of you know the data that I see is that the violation goes with the property, not necessarily the owner.

So if you purchase a property wasn't disclosed, then maybe he's got some sort of cause of action against the seller.

That's in their world, yeah.

But um, it would seem if the work was unpermitted and the permit is required, then somebody's got to go in and somebody qualified to go in and look at it, figure out what was done for the permit, get the inspection sign it off.

And that Dana, correct me if I'm wrong, Kat, but that would if that would seem to be a typical course of action.

Yes, it it is gonna be an after-the-fact permit, regardless.

Um just to keep in mind, most of the work I'm gonna bring here.

People, for example, next month, all of Brigadoon, these residents with their patio closures that were built 20 years ago, so everyone's gonna have that same story.

So, whatever decision you make, I'm just gonna suggest to keep it, you know, yeah, clear across the board for everybody, um, because that's gonna be most of my cases coming forward.

And I do have two more cases for um for Mr.

Blight's two separate other properties that are here today to be met as well for also work done without a permit.

Okay.

Well, we'll just kind of address them one at a time.

And I do I just I want to be clear that um we you know he may have remedies as you were saying.

Um we don't we're not gonna we can't give him legal advice on what to pursue, but yeah, um you know, just because someone buys something and it's not exactly what they thought, you know, there's there's real estate agents involved in that, there's title companies, there's um you know, those those are professionals that have professional standards where there's uh potential remedies available there.

There obviously the seller has certain duties and to disclose things.

So I if this situation ends up in being a significant financial burden for him, I would encourage you to talk to a to a lawyer and and consult them with what your what your options are from the city's perspective, it's pretty cut and dry.

That there's work done if if if people could simply sell the property and then escape liability like that, then it it would encourage people to kind of do some shell game transfers and and avoid um permitting requirements.

So that's why we we uh we try to be as fair and as reasonable with people as we can, understanding that they may have just bought a problem that they didn't know about.

Um, and the way that we can do that is usually we can give them more time to sort it out.

Um with with the after-the-fact permits, sometimes we'll we'll look at letters from private contractors.

It's if if uh if an engineer puts a seal on on a letter and says it it complies with the building code, or you know, the the building official has discretion to accept documentation like that.

Um you know, but at the end of the day, that's that's kind of all we're looking for is that that code compliance element.

And I'm just curious, how did this come up now?

Um this was reported from one of the general code officers.

So they usually they typically, if they see something was done, um they will report it to me.

That is their specific area.

I cover half of Clearwater by myself, so they're just more aware of what's going on in their area, so that they give me those those violations.

Okay, thanks.

So, board, do we have any recommendations on this?

I mean, it's Mr.

Blythe, it's pretty cut and dry.

I mean, it's like council said that either you're gonna have to go back and you know simile or something, maybe with the people you bought it off of for non-disclosure of all this, but it's basically you know, our hands are tied as far as so the remedy remedies what a remedy would it would be maybe to call in, like counsel said, a general contractor and get or an engineer and get them to stamp off on it and and then bring it to Dana at the building department and say here, you know, and see if he accepts that or you know Dana.

I'm sorry.

Um the the process would be the same as if the work was not done.

Just uh you have to get the contractor, you have to apply for a permit, you have to get the permit issued, and inspections must pass.

Yeah, so uh architect may be able to sign off on it.

Um we would the city would be open to to more time if the board would like because it's it's uh it appears that the property owner didn't know that the work was actually done.

Yeah, I mean, even by the Zillow and and you know, his recollection of when he bought it.

I mean, it kind of says that he he didn't have any idea.

So what was your recommendations on this?

Um I requested a compliance date of February 28th, 2026.

Uh, we could keep it at that, and and like um Mr.

Simpson advised before.

Uh my biggest thing is if you stay in communication with me, I'm always gonna work with you.

Um once that communication stops.

I I can I cannot be an acting property manager for all my cases.

Um that I just move on with my process, and I'd like that to continue.

If he keeps in contact with me, I see there's progress being made to obtain a permit.

I have no problem not not filing the um non-compliance affidavit.

This is under uh LLC.

I've been in contact with her on another matter on the adjacent property.

And I was in compliance.

I thought I came and submitted plans to the city and waited for about a month, didn't hear anything, so went back and they said these plans.

We're just trying to figure out a way for that's that's you know the least uh destructive for you as far as you know, and I don't think there's I don't just like uh our our building code uh guy said that you know it's you're just gonna have to go through the process, I think I guess.

So, you know, I well on a separate matter.

It it's it took me a really long time to find an engineer who was willing to take on the little project that I had to do for this other thing.

Maybe you can get him, I'll get him on it.

I mean, I don't know if he knows somebody who can help me as far as a contractor.

Okay, he's he's the net engineer that I hired us.

You know, he was covered up with everything that's happened here in the past you know a couple years.

Okay, all right.

Well, we're gonna go ahead and rule on this case then.

But but you know, so like I said, our hands are gonna be tied on the term.

Okay, first can I get a first motion on this, please?

I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Second, all in favor?

Aye, all opposed.

First motion passes can I have a second motion.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before February 28th, 2026.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation for each day, each violation continues to exist.

If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second, all in favor?

All opposed.

Keeping contact with Mr.

Blythe, keeping contact with her.

And you know, she's she holds the key to you know keeping you out of here.

So um, all right.

Our next uh our next uh item uh is 3.25 has been withdrawn.

Our next case is 3.26.

Fine respondents Troy Allen and Mary Blythe at 413 Pleasant Street in violation of code for permits initiative order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Mr.

Blythe, would you proponing please?

Do you admit or deny these violations, sir?

I admit this violation.

You admit these?

Can I can I get a first motion?

I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Second, all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

First motion carries.

Inspector Reese, you have to do that.

Hello, vote board.

It's this cat Reese, inspector for the city of Clearwater for case number 20-26 at 413 Pleasant Street.

This is for one violation for permits required, specifically for the front deck that was constructed on constructed on the property.

Uh we have the first notice of violation that was sent out March 12th of 2025 and the final on August 1st of 2025 with the receptive compliance dates, two certified mail return receipts.

First on March 3rd, on March 27, 2025, and August 12th of 2025.

This is going to be adjacent to the property that we just covered.

And this is the property.

Um, this is a Google image on March 20th, 23, and that was the front porch at the time.

And this is the front porch as it currently stands now.

I I did speak with Mr.

Blythe in reference to his property, and he advised me that he was having a hard time getting an engineer to sign off on this, that it more than likely would have to be removed.

Um, and then I I had personally not heard from Mr.

Blight after that second conversation that we had had.

Um, so I did go ahead and move forward with my with my case, and then I was speaking through the ring to for the notice of hearing that I placed.

Um, and him and I had a conversation via the ring.

Um he advised me he was having a hard time with the you know getting an engineer.

Um he has since done so.

Um there is a permit that was pulled.

However, it's still in review.

Um, and just before code board, um, I did speak with uh a planning, and there is going to be a zoning issue here.

So it's it is gonna take a little more work for Mr.

Blight to get this permitted um to get an active permit because it is a non-conforming property.

So I did suggest that he come over to our building to meet with um planning and zoning to see about getting an FLD uh submitted.

But it but again, just like the other one, um, I would like to keep the compliance state the same, and I will work with Mr.

Blythe as long as communication is open.

So compliant getting a what issued FLD?

FLD, yes, that um it's it I don't want to speak too much of it for planning, but it is basically uh a flexibility um to allow him to keep the porch because it has expanded, which then takes it out of the non-conformity.

So I just didn't know what that was.

Okay, all right.

Any code board any questions for inspector race?

Um might have one for the owner.

Okay, okay, so then I will be asking for compliance date to obtain a permit on or before February 28, 2026, and completion of permit six months from issuance of said permit.

If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of 150 dollars per day each day the violation continues to exist.

And again, I will work with them if communication stays open.

And you said he has the permit's been filed, all right.

It has been filed, so he just has to come back.

Right.

Okay, all right.

Um you're good.

Uh Mr.

Blythe, would you come up the so um the 28th and then and then after that six months uh for the permit?

Is it yeah, that's good, yeah?

Okay, all right.

That's all we want to thank you, sir.

Can I get a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before February 28th, 2026.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation for each day, each violation continues to exist.

If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second, all in favor?

Aye, all opposed.

Second motion carries.

All right, next case is 3.27 on our agenda has been withdrawn.

Um, and I believe that is all of the new business cases, and now we will go to old business items, um, accept the affidavits of compliance listed for 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7.

Can I get an affidavit?

I move to accept the affidavits of compliance as listed.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

All right, motion carried.

Uh next is 4.2 on our agenda, case 93-25.

Accept the affidavit of non-compliance for respondent.

Uh Juan Ariel Silva at 904 Vine Avenue for residential uh rental business tax receipt.

Is anyone here to speak on that?

Inspector uh good afternoon, board.

Uh Sarah Green, interim code manager.

Uh they have not applied for or obtained ABTR as of this morning.

Okay.

So I'm sorry, they have not what uh uh for the evidence applied for.

Okay, so let's find him.

So Ms.

Ready?

Yep.

I move to accept the affidavit of non-compliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states that fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lead is filed.

The city is authorized foreclosed collect or settle such lead.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye, all opposed.

Motion carries next is 4.3 on our agenda case 115-28.

Accept the affidavit of non-compliance for respondents Mary and George Ackerman at 832 Narcissus Avenue for fences and walls.

Mr.

Chair, all of the affidavits, they are sworn statements that the properties are in violation.

So unless there's someone from the other side here to object, we probably I think you can just accept the affidavit.

All right.

I mean, unless you want to hear from the inspector.

I don't know.

I always did this because I know these guys like to sit out and hang out for a little longer.

Oh, you guys are welcome to come.

We're doing this for you guys, you know, so you have to go back to the office.

But yeah, that's all right.

That's okay.

So yeah, let me get a uh can I get a uh a motion?

Somebody else read.

That's non-compliance, right?

Uh yes.

I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed.

The city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

All right, motion carries.

Next case 4.4 on our agenda case 122-25.

Accept the affidavits of non-compliance.

Correspondent William Joseph Reese at 1390 South Hillcrest Avenue for residential rental business tax receives.

Is there anyone here to speak on that?

No.

Can I have a I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states that fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed.

The city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Motion carries.

Next is 4.5 on our agenda case 128-25.

Accept the affidavit to non-compliance for respondents.

Coroli windows and doors LLC at 1165 Eldridge Street for permits.

Is there anyone here to speak on that?

Yes.

Will you come to the podium, sir?

State your name and address for to the clerk for our records.

My name is Clint Morrell, an attorney with Becker and Polyakoff.

Our uh mailing address, new to the firm, so we're not to read it off of this card.

Is uh 1511 Northwest Shore Boulevard suite 1000.

Uh that's over in Tampa, zip code 33607.

All right.

So we are here for a non-compliance for Coroli windows and doors LLC.

Are they are they uh refuting this or no?

We're not refusing that we haven't uh obtained a permit in accordance with the prior order.

Uh I'm here to explain what's happened since then.

We'll hear from the state or from the city first, and then we'll come back to you.

Hello, Inspector Cat Reese or the City of Clearwater.

Uh, this is going to be for uh one one six five Eldridge Street.

Let me go ahead and pull that up for you.

Uh just to give you I'll run through the pictures of give you some memory of what this was.

This was the fence that was brought before the board and the changes that were made there.

Um I have gone there a few times to see if there was any progress, and there has been no progress or communication.

Um this is as of today.

Uh there has been no change to any of the fences on any side.

All right.

Okay.

Sir, go ahead.

Thank you very much.

Uh so Coroli, after the the prior hearing, there was an incident where this gate sustained damage from a vendor that was on property.

Uh, apparently there was a back and forth.

They've now been uh in agreement to pay it.

I think it's been repaired.

The uh the company thought that when it retained the contractor to repair the gate, that that contractor would be willing to submit for the after the fact permit for the the fence.

Apparently, those contractors balked, uh did not want to do that.

Um principals decided that they would apply for the permit themselves.

Um I actually spoke with uh Miss Reese earlier, and she advised me that that's not possible because it's commercial property.

Um so I relayed that information as I've been sitting here uh to uh to my clients, and they've indicated that they've they've set up some more meetings with additional contractors to try and submit uh for the the permit.

So we acknowledge that it's not happened timely.

I apologize for that.

Um we're here to request uh leniency and some additional time uh to bring in compliance.

Um I don't think it's uh been alleged that there's a safety issue and the compliance deadline, I believe is in April.

Uh, so hopefully it's still something that's that's feasible.

Uh so we would request some additional time to be able to uh apply for the permit.

Thank you.

We we've already ruled on this, correct?

I mean, in a previous yes.

Uh I mean that this here on a this is my position.

I I uh on behalf of the city staff, I you may want to consult the board counsel as well, but I in my view um this it you know the question is whether or not they were in compliance on the deadline that was already imposed.

Now we we have had um cases where um accepting that noncompliance affidavit was postponed, um, but that would not affect the order that's already in place.

So if it came back next month and it was still in violation and you accepted it at that time, the fines would go back to the original order.

Um I mean I'll defer we already found this in violation this case that's yes from procedural standpoint.

And then in terms of whether or not you have other options, I I would defer to to your attorney to explain those to you.

I mean, I think it's uh I agree.

Yeah, it at this point it's accepting or not accepting the affidavit, yeah.

Um of noncompliance.

If you subsequently accept it, the fine runs from the date of non-compliance.

Yeah.

So I mean that's up to the board.

And then that's and then it's uh three months after the order signed.

Right, correct, not from that original.

It's from when the date of you accept the non-compliance.

Okay.

So there is gonna be three months there before anything really kicks in.

So no, no, no.

No, it's from if you accept it today, then it's from the date that you've accepted the non-compliance.

It would be today.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, that's what he said.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

So that gives you March April.

Somebody rate.

Okay.

I move to accept the affidavit of non-compliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed.

The city is authorized to foreclose collect or settle such things.

Second, all in favor.

I aye.

All opposed.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

We're gonna get a copy done order.

Yes.

Yep.

Um next is uh nuisance abatement lien filing.

6.1 has been withdrawn.

Uh 6.2 on our agenda case number 35-26, except as a nuisance abatement lien for respondents Good Shepherd Boulevard LLC at 1746 Drew Street for inoperative vehicle and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met.

Inspector Cassman, you have the floor.

Okay.

Give it a sec.

All right.

Good afternoon again, board.

Daniel Casman, code enforcement inspector for the city of Clearwater.

This is case number 35-26 for 1746 Drew Street.

This is uh nuisance abatement, but there might be a bit of a change at the end.

We'll go through it there.

Okay.

Uh there's one violation for code section 3-1503 B6 for an operative vehicle.

This is the dates and notes of violation was set with the compliance state and the affidavit of posting.

Uh this is 1746 uh Drew Street.

It's brought to my attention by a fellow inspector.

Uh, this is a little mini shopping mall, three storefronts.

Uh this truck was this little food trailer was part of the issue.

Uh we'll see more photos of it.

It still is considered a vehicle, it has no license plate on it, but it is also uh hardwired into the ground.

It has plumbing into the ground and it has electric under the ground.

So you'll see later on what we're gonna ask for while we're asking for it.

Uh can't exactly tow it in that state, but on uh the rear of the property, you see a white pickup truck there, and behind it is a big black uh box truck.

The back of the pickup truck is full of motorcycles and four-wheelers and bicycles again, not really towable in that state, has no license plate on it.

In addition, the box truck at the time didn't have a current tag, but also something that we're not really able to tow, and it was full of materials and uh a little bit beyond what we usually deal with.

I did post the property after sending a courtesy letter trying to get in touch with the owner, nobody called me back.

Uh that day the white truck was in the same state.

The black truck still had expired tag, and the trailer still had no license plate on it.

And went back after compliance state.

This vehicle had no uh license plate on it still.

Truck had no license plate, but the uh black box truck did have a current tag on it now, so that one's better.

Uh this was this morning.

This uh vehicle still has no license plate on it, it's still hardwired into the ground, both plumbing and electric.

And the uh white pickup truck still has uh a bunch of motorcycles, four-wheelers on it, and still has no license plate.

So I mean the big truck was gone though.

No, the back truck actually is just backed up to the it's taken care of.

They have another box truck there that is slowly got tires deflating, so it's probably gonna be end up being operative soon.

But the same issue we're running into well, being a bit beyond our normal towing to have paid capabilities.

So plans to be met for an operative vehicle by displaying license plate with current tag on every vehicle slash ensuring that all vehicles are physically operable, or by removing inoperative vehicles from the premises, and I'm requesting compliance on it before February 14th, 2026 or a fine of 150 dollars per day for violation for each day.

The violation continues to access.

And I have a question.

What about the fact that it's hardwired in and hooked to plumbing?

That's why we're kind of asking for uh liens in this case because I don't have the ability to really tow anything off that property.

Right.

If anybody's got any uh questions about that, I'll defer to management or uh Jared.

But wouldn't they need a permit for that though?

Uh good afternoon, Board Sarah Green Interim Code Manager.

Um, those cases be forthcoming in the future.

This is just a P new that could be brought sooner.

You found that afterwards, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

I don't have any questions.

I can I know that that food truck's not I really want to cause a bigger trouble trying to yank that thing or try to do some uh amateur electric or plumbing work concerning that stuff has been permitted.

I really want to want to put hands on it.

Are they uh just uh sort off the subject a little bit for just a second?

Yeah, are well I've noticed so many food trucks nowadays over since like the pandemic.

Are is that had have the city like taken into consideration any more or any new laws or ordinances regarding all the all the trucks that have popped up?

Food trucks are a little bit of a ticky uh sticky situation, they are preemptively um enforced by the state statute, so we cannot do uh any ordinances that would preclude what the state says.

So we have to kind of think about what they're doing, where they're parked, how they're parked, when the equals are in.

Since so many have been popped up over the last two or three years, and yeah, we see them everywhere now.

So I'm sorry for for getting offset um interesting situation.

Board, do we have any questions for for now?

Inspector Cashman.

Uh just a comment that normally this reads five days, 214 would be 17 days from now.

So a uh a motion uh entering an order would be like with 17 days if that's change that all right.

Shall we?

Shall we?

All right.

I move to enter an order of finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within 17 days of the board's written order.

If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate, maintain the nuisance, and charge the respondent with the reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property.

If cost fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second.

Don't mean to interrupt you guys.

I'm not asking to abate, I'm asking for liens on this one.

I know it is a P and U.

It's they want to interrupt you.

Oh, so we can amend it.

So will we just go to um this is affidavit of non-compliance?

No, these are this is kind of a new request they're asking as a condition.

So we don't really have a set in order.

So I'm sorry, motion.

So you're they're asking in in lieu of umatement.

Is this abatement a fine?

Okay.

Instead of the city going out and cleaning it up, do you want to start finding okay?

Okay.

Um, so we would we just ask for your standard motions, your standard first and second.

First and second.

Oh, okay.

All right.

So that's how we're gonna like handle these nuisance abatements from now on.

Well, so we've had some conversations.

I mean, I I think that they're uh from an administrative side with the way that our our case our content management system is called a cell uh, and there's a lot of things that are sort of automated when we when we input data in for the for these kinds of violations, they're they're set up as PNU cases um based on the code sections, but um you know we we don't want to go abate everything all the time.

It can really complicate things, and obviously people have constitutional rights and things that we have to you know be very uh aware of.

And so um we're asking not for the abatement here as you saw from the circumstances.

This is not something that we want to go and and do that for.

Um, but we're we're looking at whether there's some other way that we can bring these if we're not gonna seek abatement that we can bring them in the standard uh form.

But here, like I said, there's um they they are nuisance code sections, but we're not asking for the nuisance abatement.

I apologize for the confusion.

Hopefully, so some in this section will be banks and some of them will be possibly fines.

There could be some cases that we bring that we want the option of abatement, but we want the fine to run until we exercise the option of abatement.

There could be some where um we don't want the option of abatement at all because it's it's too uh messy or or unclear.

Um there's a variety of things that we would pursue.

We we try to be very clear with you in terms of what we're asking for your authorization to do.

Yeah, and in cases like this, we'll just use our first and second motions for the violation that's what that's my request, unless uh Mr.

Salzman has has an objection to that.

No, I think that's the way we have to do it until it's cleared up.

Okay, thank you.

We'll work on it.

Let's have a first motion and I move to find the respondent in violation of the code is referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

First motion carries.

You have a second motion.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before February 14th.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of 150 dollars per day for violation for each day.

Violation continues to exist.

If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized for a close collector settle such lien.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Second motion carries.

All right.

Next up is 6.3 on our agenda case 36-26, accept the nuisance abatement link for Andrew Schneidler at 2079 Loma Linda Way for lock clearing and issue an order with the compliance deadline authorized the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met.

Inspector Casper, you have the floor.

This one's just gonna be a normal one.

Nothing new.

An abatement, yeah.

Normal above normal abatement.

Thank you for order.

Well, that was the first one that we'd ever had that was a fine, or since I've been sent here.

You know, in the abatement.

No, those are I got confused when I seen your recommendation come up.

This is just about the circumstances of trying to rip something out of the ground versus a normal truck.

Yeah, I hear it.

I get it.

So enforcement inspector for the city of Clearwater.

This is 2079 Loma Linda Way, case number 36-26.

It's a nuisance abatement.

One violation here for code section 3-1503 B7, V8, V10 for lot clearing.

Uh this 2079 Loma Linda Way's came as a complaint from the housing association of Valencia Park.

Uh property's not being maintained.

There's trash and debris, high grass at the uh pine tree or whatever that evergreen tree is out front.

It's also overgrowing to the right-of-way, needs to be lifted a little bit.

And there's some cinder blocks and some other trash and debris in the yard.

Now, this was after the compliance date.

Looks like somebody took the notice, but nothing's been done to the property.

We abated the notice.

Then I went down this, I went down this morning, and still nothing's been done.

You took your stick this time.

Oh, yeah, I guess they did.

So same state.

So clients met for lock clearing by mowing the lawn and edging the curb and sidewalk, cutting back any greenery blocking the use of the sidewalk, so there's at least an eight foot vertical clearance above the sidewalk, and request compliance on it before five days from the date before it renders its order.

All right.

Any questions?

All right, can I get an abatement?

I move to enter an order, finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order.

If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with a reasonable costs, which will become a lien on the property.

If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed.

The city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second, second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

All right, motion carries.

Next one.

Thank you.

Next is 6.4 on our agenda case 37-26.

Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents.

Icon Medical Inc.

at 2451 Enterprise Road for inoperative vehicle and issue an order with the compliance deadline to authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met.

Inspector Daniels, you have the floor.

City of Clearwater coal compliance inspect uh this is for 2451 Enterprise Road nuisance abatement.

There's one violation there for cold section 3-1506.

Uh inoperable vehicle.

The notice of violation was posted on January 7th, 2026 with a compliance date of January 12th, 2026.

Certified mail was uh received January 16th, 2026.

That's the notice that was post.

That's the vehicle.

It's in a uh medical parking lot.

Uh it came in as a complaint.

I went knocked on the door, asked the owners.

Well, asked the employee, and the gentleman said it was his car.

It was flooded in the storm, and he waited on the insurance company.

He really had no explanation why he told it from home to the business.

So probably didn't think he'd get in trouble if he parted out of business instead of being at home.

He wouldn't get it.

Yeah, so no tag on there.

It's a nice car.

Looks just like our wife's so compliance can be met for the inoperable vehicle by registering the vehicle through the DMV and putting a ballot license plate on the vehicle, making sure the vehicle is roll-worthy.

So compliance can be met for the inoperable vehicle by registering the vehicle through the DMV and putting a ballot license plate on the vehicle, making sure the vehicle is roll worthy.

Further one violation requesting compliance five days after the board renders this order.

All right.

Any questions for Inspector Dam?

No.

All right.

I move to enter an order, finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order.

If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable costs, which will become a lien on the property.

If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose collect or settle such lien.

Second.

All in favor, aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Mr.

Daniels.

Next up is 6.5 on our agenda case 38.26.

Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents, Todd Reese at 1104 North Garden Avenue for lock clearing and issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation of compliance is not met.

Inspector Maddox, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, board Kevin Maddox for City of Clearwater Code Compliance Inspector for I'll get it up here in just a second.

Case number 38 26, 1104 North Garden Avenue nuisance abatement.

One violation for code section 1503 B7, B8, and B5A for overgrowth, right of way overgrowth, and accumulation of debris and trash.

Notice of violation was mailed and posted.

There was a compliance date for December 29th.

Certified mail.

Green card was mailed out but was not received back.

Here you can see the property.

On 121, I took pictures again.

There was no change.

Everything remained the same, still long.

And then today it was still the same, still long, still not cut.

Compliance can be met.

Lot clearing by cutting all grass vegetation to include the curb line sidewalk and continuing to maintain it, removing all trash and debris and continuing to keep it clean.

For case number 38-26 for the violations of overgrowth, overgrowth right away and accumulation of debris requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order.

Looks like at one time they pulled a uh uh tractor in there.

You can see the tractor tire marks like with a bush hog or something to like knock down it.

Up and down the garden area, there's also uh many of these lot owners are becoming victims of tire dumping.

Yeah, yeah.

So there's all sorts of things going on up and down that street.

All righty.

Can I get a nuisance abatement line?

I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order.

If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable costs, which will become a lien on the property.

If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed.

The city is authorized to foreclose collect or settle such lien.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Motion carries.

All right, 6.6 on our agenda.

Case number 39-26, accepted the nuisance abatement lien for respondents, Mark and Carol.

Dossier at 29 at 927 Bruce Avenue for lot clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation of compliance is not met.

Inspector Maddox, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, board.

This will be for trying to get this to work.

927 Bruce Avenue nuisance abatement for case number 39-26.

Uh, one violation of 1503 B7, B8, and B5A overgrowth, right-of-way overgrowth and accumulation of debris and trash.

Notice the violation was mailed out and posted on uh 116 of 26 compliance date of 121 of 26.

The green card was mailed, but it was not received back.

This is the property which has just been left to grow the way it is.

I got some better pictures as you can look further into the property.

This is in the front of the property here.

As you're looking along the sidewalk and the front sidewalk, it's completely overgrown.

On January 16th, you can also see that as you go further into this property, even the trees are falling down and the uh grass just continues to grow higher.

This was on the 21st of January, and it continued uh it remained the same with no change.

This was this morning with no changes and high overgrowth.

Compliance can be met for lot clearing by cutting all grass and vegetation to include the curb line sidewalk and continuing to maintain it, removing all trash and debris and continuing to keep it clean.

For the uh recommended recommendation for case number 39 26 for overgrowth, overgrowth right of way, and accumulation of debris and trash requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order.

Does anyone live there?

To my knowledge, no.

Uh, and the house next door and the lot across the street.

It's kind of uh accumulation of a lot of houses that have fallen to the previous hurricane.

Right, exactly.

Unfortunately, I move to enter an order, finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order.

If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable costs, which will become a lien on the property.

If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed.

The city is authorized to foreclose, collect or settle such lien.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

All right.

Next step is where we at 6.7.

Case number 6.7 original case number 40-26 accepted nuisance abatement lien for respondents.

NSB TRI LLC at 94 Devon Drive for lock clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline authorized city to mitigate the violation.

If compliance is not met.

Inspector Maddox, you got the floor.

Kevin Maddox, Code Compliance Inspector City of Clearwater.

Case number 40-26 for 94 Devon Drive.

One violation for 1503 B7, B8, and B5A overgrowth, overgrowth right away, and accumulation of debris and trash.

Notice the violation was mailed out and posted on December 15, 2025.

Compliance date on the 29th of December 2025.

The green card was received back signed.

I never heard from anyone by any other means.

But it seems like all of the construction workers keep parking in front of this house and driving through the front yard to access this building over here, which does apparently does not seem to have a driveway.

So it's very strange.

But the property line comes down here, so it's very odd again.

If you look back on the sides of the building, it's very long and unkept.

On the 20th of January, it remained unchanged.

Some of this debris is from the construction workers who just really don't care about an empty house and what's going on, so they keep staging their materials in the front because of the proximity.

And then this morning, nothing has changed.

The weeds are still high.

Compliance can be met for lot clearing by cutting all grass and vegetation to include the curb line sidewalk and continuing to maintain it, removing all trash and debris and continuing to keep it clean.

The board, do you have any questions?

No.

All right.

Move to enter an order, finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order.

If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property.

If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed.

The city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second.

All in favor?

All opposed.

All right.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Next.

Thank you.

Next up is 6.8 on our agenda case 41-26, accept the nuisance abatement leading for respondents.

Arca Holmes LLC at 1465 Samuel on court for lock clearing and issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met.

Inspector Steuth, you have the floor.

Wheel of death.

Only because it's the second or last one if we run out of time.

Yeah, that's right.

You gotta put another quarter in.

Well reading, have our other three minutes.

Okay, Vicky setup code of compliance inspector for the city of Clearwater.

This is case number 4126 for 1465 CN1 court.

There's one violation here for overgrowth.

Uh code section 3-1503 v 7 V8 V10 and B5A.

Notice the violation was posted and mailed on December 18th of 2025 with the compliance date of 1228-2025.

It's a picture of posting on the front door.

This was the picture of the backyard on 1218.

This is a picture of the backyard as of this morning.

Compliance can be met for lock clearing by clearing all trash debris and overgrowth of the property.

Requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order.

Any questions, board?

Nope.

No.

I move to enter an order, finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order.

If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property.

If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

All right.

Next on an agenda 6.9, case 42-26.

Accept the nuisance abatement leaf for respondents.

Uh Christine Dorsellis at 214 South Highland Avenue for inoperative vehicle and issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the compliance violation of compliance is not there.

Inspector Seuss, you have the floor.

There's one violation here for an inoperable vehicle, code section dash 3-1503 B6.

Notice the violation was posted and mailed on 112-26 with the compliance data 123-26.

Here's a copy of the posting.

It is on it is for a boat trailer, but there is also a boat on the trailer.

This is a picture of it on the 12th.

That's the boat.

This is just showing you the condition of the trailer.

It's breaking, the tires are flat, they've dug into the ground.

And then this was this morning.

The boat is still sitting there, and it still has the same tag of 526-2022.

Compliance can be met for removing the trailer or making sure trailer has a current tag and registration along with inflated tires.

Requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order.

Any questions, board?

No.

I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order.

If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable costs, which will become a lien on the property.

If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed.

The city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

All right.

Motion carried.

All right.

Now, board, we have to sit and elect our officers.

Yep.

So do we have any suggestions?

Do we have any yes?

Yes.

Nominations.

I'd like to nominate Mr.

Brown for what's the position?

Chairman.

Chairman.

Chairman.

Second.

Third.

All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed.

And I'd like to nominate Mr.

Kenny to be the deputy for the vice, however, you say it.

And I would like to nominate Mr.

Engel to be vice chair.

We have a run on.

Uh oh.

Alright, let's hear your feels, guys.

Come on.

What can you do for the board?

Can we vote for the guy here, right?

Yeah.

Oh, he's not.

Is he coming back?

I don't know.

Do we know anything about these people?

Well they knew elections were the today.

Yeah.

Okay.

I know Daniel lost his uh sister who's about 80 years old, so he's been dealing with all the family matters and stuff.

I did talk to him over the weekend.

Uh off the record, we uh made a little wager on a football game.

Just that kind of thing.

Chatted a bit, and so uh I would assume he's fine.

He had planned to be here, but I guess wasn't able to make it.

So he went so and you won't be the vice chairman if we elect you.

I didn't say that.

I'm just offering a second nomination.

I didn't I didn't recuse or deny or say no.

Will you accept the nomination?

Uh yeah, sure.

Of course.

Accept the nomination.

But up to you guys.

We're adjourned, right?

We just have to vote for that.

We have to vote.

Yeah.

All in favor of Mr.

Kenney being the vice chair of the uh 2026 code enforcement season.

I season five.

Uh the eyes have it.

There we go.

So we're all set.

Excellent.

We have all the place.

Almost three hours.

And we're ready for.

Well, see, I try to keep the guys out of work.

I mean, I know they gotta go back to work.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry.

And uh if that's uh if we have nothing else, uh we are adjourned.

Thank you.