Today's meeting of the municipal code enforcement board is called to order on March twenty fifth, twenty twenty six.

Please rise for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to flag of the United States of America.

Please be seated.

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

Please remember to turn off your cell phone.

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 and then affirmative relief.

Formal rules of evidence do not apply.

Each side is limited to fifteen minutes.

The board may grant additional time.

Individuals who conduct themselves otherwise will be asked to leave.

If necessary, they will be escorted from chambers.

Motion passes.

We're going to take up a lien case reduction based on the request from our secretary.

This is under on page six.

Under item five, other board action, and this will be case 97-24.

Consider request by petitioners, RE Capital Management LLC at 2080 Douglas Avenue to reduce the fine regarding exterior services, and if approved, issue an order that specifies a fine that includes administration costs and establishes the date payable, or the lien will revert to its original amount.

Thank you.

Would you state your name and your uh address and involvement for the record, please?

Yes, my name is John Lou.

That's called L I U.

I'm a state certified building contractor, uh, filling in for the property owner.

Um, and Nicole does have an authorization letter that's autorized signed by the property owner.

Uh, my address is 5447 Road North, number 235, uh, St.

Peter's Road 4 at 33714.

Thank you.

Um, basically the property when it had uh open coach cases, it approved a lien, and I don't know the exact dollar matters.

I don't have a memory, but it's around 17 something thousand dollars.

Um the property has been uh brought into compliance.

It looks a lot better today uh than it did previously.

Um, and just uh Greg here is going to attest to that fact.

I actually the first time I stopped by the property was this morning.

I was expecting to see worse than I saw it, it looked pretty darn good.

It will look even better because I'm going to be brought in to do the work from this from this point forward.

So the property owner is uh respectfully requesting that as you know the uh lien be reduced and mitigated to actual hard costs, and we'll get that paid uh ASAP, and that's all I have to say really, unless you have any questions.

Uh we may later.

Okay, I'll take the second.

Inspector Dixon?

Afternoon, board inspector Dixon say clear water co-compliance.

Um what he said is true.

There was rotten wood around the roof flying, and then uh a tree fell on the house after the storms in 24, and uh him and an associate stepped in and they replaced the roof, got all the wood replaced.

The grounds were in pretty bad shape.

There's a shed that was deteriorating, a fence is deteriorating that's all been removed, all the dead vegetation's been gone, so the city's happy voted done.

Okay, yeah, one thing we did not mention.

I apologize is the current property owner is not the owner.

Please step to the mic, sir.

We uh usually loud and overbearing stuff that we do.

Um the the property owner um is not the same owner as who incurred the liens originally.

I think that's an important detail to know.

Yes, sorry about that.

All right, does the uh the city have a position?

We're good for administrative costs.

Is that what that thumbs up is meant to indicate?

All righty, uh Madam Secretary.

Do you have a number for the uh administrative costs on this project?

I have it, chair.

Oh, there you go.

Sorry.

1096 and 20 cents and confirm the uh this green.

The city's content with that number.

Yep, we're good with that.

Okay.

No, all right, but no questions.

Can I get a uh a motion?

I move to enter an order reducing the amount of the lien to the administrative costs of 1,096 dollars and 20 cents payable within 30 days.

Is that what we have?

30 days?

Yes, or the lien will revert to its original amount.

I have a second second.

All right, all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, now back to page.

Thank you.

Page two.

New business items.

Page two declaration of violation.

Agenda page two.

Agenda page okay.

After the cover page.

Yeah.

All right.

Our next order of business uh case 3.1 has been withdrawn.

Case three numbered 3.2 is continued until May.

Case 3.3 continued from February 25th, 2026.

Case number 23-26.

Fine respondents, Connor Petron at 3804 Brigadine Circle in violation of code for exterior surfaces.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

Inspector Stevens, you have the floor.

Yes, board.

This case is actually we're requesting a declaration of violation.

Uh the property has been bought into compliance.

It was just way after the compliance date.

So we'd just be requesting that declaration, please.

Somebody else wanted to speak on this.

Sir, are you here to speak on this case?

Well, I'm comprehension, no the owner.

Um I don't need to.

You can address the board if you like, sir.

So you want to have three 3804 for good circle.

Very good.

Thank you, sir.

Um basically, the inspector, you're requesting you're saying that the that he's now in compliance, and you're simply requesting uh declaration of violation, which is basically like your bounds guilty, but you're not being charged anything.

All right.

Does the board have any questions?

Can I get a declaration of violation?

I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the appetite.

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.

May I have a second?

All right.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Our next case 3.4, continued from February 25th, 2026.

Case 24-26.

Fine respondents Robin Farley, the state at 1506 South Hillcrest Avenue in violation of the code for abandoned building and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

Inspector Jensen, you have the floor.

Dave Jensen code inspector of the city of Clearwater.

This is case 2426 at 1506 Hill Crest for an abandoned building.

Apologize, the slides aren't going to slide.

So there's one violation for an abandoned building in 31503 B2.

These are the dates of the notices and postings.

The posting of the notice of hearing.

Oh, here we go.

I do it again.

So I can very little.

This is the property back almost two years ago in May of 2024.

There was a in-and-out abandoned vehicle on the property that was removed.

However, the overgrowth uh was present, and it's been pretty much the same way ever since.

We've abated the nuisance here six times under a prior board order.

Uh we just did a uh mowing and abatement on the property last week.

This is from I believe uh yeah, July of just last year, same thing.

Property the front and rear yards are all overgrown.

Again, we've had to go and abate the property six different times.

The owner pro the owner of the property is deceased.

Uh apparently she passed way back in uh 2023.

There's been an itinerant traffic through the house, however, there haven't been any utilities on at the residence since October of 2023, and according to neighbors, there's been no activity there as far as anyone living or occupying the residence.

So we're asking for the abandoned building.

Compliance to be met for abandoned building by the utilities being turned on, property being sold, occupied, rented, demolished, and the property being maintained.

Requesting compliance honored for uh April 25th of uh 2026 or fine 150 dollars per day for each day the violation of this.

Thank you.

Board do you have any questions?

Can I get a first violation, please?

I have a question.

Have you been in touch with the new owner?

There is no owner, no.

The only stairs deceased, yeah.

But there's no error.

According to well, again, this is according to the neighbors.

Uh there was a son and daughter that lived there at one point, however, neither one of them could keep up with the property, and they have not seen it.

There's been no evidence of anyone being there for I've been looking at the property now for almost two years.

So thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

I just if nobody owns it, who's supposed to pay the fines?

Well, the the owner, the the deceased party is still technically the owner, it would be the estate.

So basically, I was gonna get I would defer to our council to answer that.

It's probably better than I think.

Yeah, we somebody owns the property.

It's just when you die, your the property automatically goes to your heirs.

Right.

We don't um we don't track that down.

Um we we uh name the estates and then uh we record against the property, and then whoever inherits it will then assume the lien that's created through this process.

I gotcha.

Yes, and according to the property appraiser, it's uh Robin Farley is the owner's name, that's still in property appraiser as under her name.

So there's there is no trust or you know, state established as well that will so that's like that's how we choose who to name is we just look at the property appraiser and the tax collector records, and then we we go with that.

We don't uh order title work unless it's we may do that for an abatement or something like that.

But if for a case like this, we wouldn't do a title search.

Okay, all right.

Any other questions?

May I have a first motion, please?

Mr.

Chairman, um move to find the respondent a violation of the code as referred to in the appidavit in this case.

Second, second all in favor?

Aye, all opposed motion carries.

I have a second motion, please.

Mr.

Chairman, I'll move to end an order of requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before April 25th, 2026.

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

It finds the fees remaining a paid three months after such lane is bought.

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

I'll second it.

All in favor, aye.

All opposed motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, Inspector.

Our next case 3.5 is continued to May.

3.6 is also continued to May.

3.7 continued from February 20 5th, 2026.

Case 34-26.

Fine respondents William Black at 29 uh 2390 Willow Tree Trail in violation of code for unsafe building.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Oh man, Mr.

Black.

Inspector, I believe you have Mr.

Black behind you.

Good day, Mr.

Black.

How are you?

All right, good.

State your name and address.

Yeah, will you buy 2390 uh Willow Street Trail?

Thank you.

Um I seem to remember this case from um last month.

Last month, and so um it would appear that the um the city is still seeking a uh inspector.

That the city is still uh seeking a violation for uh code for an unsafe building.

Yes, sir.

Um James Larson, building inspector, willow tree trail.

Um the same information as last time.

What most important is uh for us there has been some progress.

Um remember uh he had a uh demolition permit.

Yes, sir.

And uh I was out there yesterday and was able to get some pictures of the property.

Uh yes, the house.

These are previous.

What the city's asking for is um within the next 60 days that he get this house put back together.

Uh this this is the house as of yesterday.

Uh this is the dumpster in his front yard.

This is interior where uh demolition has occurred, drywall is removed.

These pictures are from yesterday, inspector.

Yes, sir.

And um Mr.

Black's been in communication with me throughout the process uh for compliance to be met.

We're looking for complete restoration to meet minimum code requirements or demolish the remaining structure and make the art and swimming pool safe.

Um the recommendation if the structure is not in compliance by May 29th, 2026.

The city asks the board to authorize entrance onto the property to correct the violations.

The city will correct the violations by any means necessary with any reasonable cost to be applied as liens against the property after three months from the recording date of such lien that defines a fees remain unpaid.

The city's attorney's office is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien using any legal or equitable remedies available under the law.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Chair, before the before we pass, may I add a few things to the to the presentation?

Yes, please.

Um as you call uh if you recall last month, I specifically asked for a continuance because I wanted to look into the permit issue.

Um there's nothing in Florida law that says that when the city issues a permit that that would now exempt that property from uh nuisance codes, which is what our abandoned building code and the codes that's being brought to you today.

Um so all the building permit does is uh authorize construction according to the plans that are part of that permit application.

So the the rule still applies.

Um that's why we we decided to just present the same remedy that we requested before.

Um the other thing to add is that this is a this is a homesteaded property, so this is our standard language that's in front of you right now about foreclosure.

Um but we uh we are prohibited by law from foreclosing on a on a homestead property, um, but that's the only specific provision of law that that uh changes the circumstance for a homestead property.

All the other rules apply in terms of nuisance and um the conditions of the property and and the silly the city's ability to go and a bait um through demolition, and so I just and that's kind of my closing note here that the request is any means necessary.

What we mean by that is demolition of the structure.

So the board, if the board grants what we're requesting, um, if the house is not brought into compliance within the the deadline that the board imposes, um the city would then um get bids from demolition contractors and then uh carry out a demolition and record a lien for the cost of that demolition against the property.

Um so that that lien would still show up in the public records, it would still impact um the title and the ability to sell the property, but the city could not um foreclose on that lien and take the property because of the fact that it's uh currently homesteaded as far as as far as I can see in the in the records.

Um so I just wanted to make sure that we're all clear in terms of what the proceeding is today, what the city's asking for.

Um, and then also we do have some citizens that that want to speak on this, and and I would request that the board hear from them before the board um makes a decision on this.

All right.

Very good.

Mr.

Black, I'm sorry, Mr.

Larson.

Did you something you wanted to say?

No, sir.

Okay.

Okay.

Mr.

Black.

My intent was to just continue.

So if there's a complaint specific, uh I will do the best I can with the pool.

Uh the main thing I need is power.

My son is a pool mechanic, and maybe I could run a pool pump from a generator.

But I was just gonna continue the permit, and it's not realistic to put a house totally together.

I would need another permit and various professionals and inspections if that runs into almost a year.

I'm just trying to continue the project.

Understood.

And you've uh begun demolition to expose further damages.

Right.

Architect, and there would be a deck work in 60 days.

In 60 days, it takes that long to order windows and haven't delivered.

Understood.

I just need to continue.

Okay.

Have questions?

Excuse me.

I would like to hear from the from the other citizens.

Mr.

Chairman.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Black.

You'd like to sit for a minute.

We'll hear from our other parties involved.

You state your name and address for the record, please.

Stephanie Sistie, 2479 Moorhaven Drive West.

I'm so sorry, I didn't forget your name.

Stephanie Sistie.

Thank you.

SISTI.

So I'm here on behalf of Woodgate Homeowners Association.

I live in that neighborhood.

And this was a letter a few of us came up with, and I volunteered to read it today.

We respectfully request your immediate action regarding the property at 2390 Willow Tree Trail.

The structure sustained significant fire damage in September of 2023 and has remained in a severely deteriorated and unsecured condition for approximately two and a half years.

Since that time, no meaningful progress has been made toward repair, rehabilitation, or demolition.

The current condition of the property presents ongoing concerns to the surrounding community, including a visibly compromised and deteriorating structure, potential safety risks due to neglect and lack of maintenance, an attractive nuisance that may invite trespassing, a negative impact on pro on neighboring property values, values, and overall neighborhood standards.

Despite multiple continuances and extended opportunities granted to the property owner, there has been no demonstrable progress towards bringing the property into compliance.

It is our understanding that property taxes remain unpaid for multiple years, further indicating an inability to resolve this matter independently.

While we are sympathetic to the owner's personal circumstances, the prolonged inaction has placed an unfair and ongoing burden to the surrounding residents and community.

Given the length of time this issue has persisted and the lack of progress, we respectfully request that the board take decisive action to affirm the property status as unsafe and uninhabitable if already not if not already designated.

Move forward with enforcement measures requiring demolition or full remediation.

Utilize any available legal or municipal remedies to bring the property into compliance without further delay.

Residents have been patient throughout this extended process, but the current situation is no longer sustainable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have one question.

I have additional speaker.

Yeah.

Please.

My name is Susan Huddleson.

I live at 2384 Willow Tree Trail, directly next door to Mr.

Black.

Um I've lived next door to him for over 20 years.

Our garages and driveways are together about 25 feet apart, I guess.

Prior to the fire, Bill had difficulty maintaining his house and property.

So all of this did not let you know.

Could you speak up just because of the fire?

Could you speak up?

Repeat that.

Oh, prior to the fire, Bill had difficulty maintaining his house and property.

So none of this occurred just because of the fire.

Examples of these are there's been a blue car parked in front for many many years, never going anywhere.

Um his yard was not kept.

His pool has been consistently green, and his fence was broken around the pool.

That would present a health and safety issue.

This was all before the fire, so continues.

After the fire, I was patient because I felt bad for him and his health deterioration.

But since his garage door inside garage door stood ajar this entire time, the smoke smell was overwhelming for over a year.

During that time, I finally called the building code inspector, first asking for help for Bill.

I felt bad for him.

Knowing he was unable to repair what needed to be done.

And neighbors were tired of the mess.

I spoke with the former inspector several times, and I don't feel like anything was ever done.

Recently, due to lack of care of his palm tree in the back, which is next to my property, the entire top of the palm tree fell into my yard, and I had to pay to have somebody cut it and remove it.

Next, I have a wheelchair van for my daughter.

And I had problems when she was in it starting it a couple times, and finally found out a rodent had eaten the wire in it.

And right after that, my other vehicle had rodent deposits and the filters.

Now I have to keep rodent repellent in both vehicles to prevent that.

Um a deserted vacant home with easy access for anyone to enter at any time.

Day or night makes me feel uncomfortable living next door.

The home value also would be affected.

I've gone through the system, which has failed myself and my neighbors.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Laurel Cavins, and we live two houses.

I live next door to her.

And for several years, the pool at least 10 years has not been uh had any kind of uh the pumping going on.

Black.

We've had those black mosquitoes around our neighborhood.

We've had a trouble with the mosquitoes, the fencing, as she had said, holes in it that a young child could probably get into.

The very back of it, the front is boarded up.

The backyard, which does have a fence around it now, but the it the windows are open.

So we don't know.

Are there critters in there?

Does anybody has anybody seen any kind of health issues because of the animals, possibly being in there?

And that's what a lot of us are concerned about, plus the way it looks.

Our house values are going down, and it's been three almost three years.

Very little has been done to that.

They did work on it last weekend.

They cut some tree limbs down, and one couch was on the side of the road.

Other than that, we haven't seen a lot of progress going on or anybody working at it, so we are concerned about this.

And what she said in the letter, you know, the rodents are if that's what they are.

You know, we're all kind of subjected to protect our own property.

So hopefully this will get done.

Does he have proof that he's got an engineer and financial?

Does he have proof that he can do it within the 30, 60 days?

That's just what we want to know.

You know, how far this is going to go, how long is it going to be?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can I ask one quick question, ma'am?

Yes.

Did you say 10 years on the pool?

At least.

So we know that nothing, the pool is just stagnant.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sir, did you wish to speak?

Yes.

Uh, John Cabin's 2378 Willow Tree Trail.

Um what I just want to know is uh, does he have any insurance?

And does he have any income?

And he said he applied for a grant last month.

We were here, he said he applied for a grant, and I'm wondering if what grant for how much, and did he have the house evaluated by an engineer to the to determine the cost of you know fixing it?

And we've seen notices posted up there that the house was a nuisance, and it said there was going to be fines after I don't know, 30 days, there's going to be a certain amount of fines every day, and I'm wondering that's been that's been over a year ago.

I'm wondering the amount of fines that have accrued.

I mean, is he is he gonna be financially able to do this?

You know, we know if the house is a it's run down and it's a nuisance, but can he afford to fix it?

Does he have the means?

And maybe you can build can tell you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Patrick Raffle.

My address is 3237 Maskers Drive in Clearwater.

I'm a vice president of Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition, and one of the initiatives we undertook in 2025 was to assist any member with respect to code violations or code compliance issues.

This HOA reached out to me in June of 2025 to assist them with this matter.

You've listened to the history of it, you know the details of what's been going on for how long, and the fact that this is a natural eyesore in the neighborhood.

I began attending your board meetings to see what you would be doing to protect neighborhoods from a residence that looks like this, and I've not been too impressed with what's been taking place.

However, on February 25th, the city moved to get authorization from you to go on the property to begin the process for demolition of this property.

And to everybody's surprise, Mr.

Black made the first appearance of my knowledge at your meeting and indicated that he had secured a permit the Friday before.

That caused Mr.

Simpson to request a 30-day continuance while they looked into the matter.

I also recall this board back in October of 2025, requiring Mr.

Black to have a structural engineer study his property to see if it could in fact be renovated or should in fact be demolished as an unsafe structure, including his financial ability to undertake renovation if that was decided.

Mr.

Black did not appear at that meeting, did not have that study done, and presented no evidence whatsoever of being able to renovate this property.

It continues to be a problem going into year three and listening to what he's saying today, it'll probably go into year four.

My concern, this HOA's concern, and the neighborhood concern of our organization is you need to do something to protect the neighborhood from a residence like this.

And I hope you'll take the firm action and decisive action in spite of what Mr.

Black says he will accomplish.

Will he be able to do that in a reasonable period of time?

I would implore each of you to go visit this residence.

It is an absolute disgrace.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, sir.

Questions from the board?

I have a question for the city.

What occurred in October 25 as far as the evaluation of the building and finances?

Was anything done at that time?

I don't recall what that was spoken about at the meeting.

I would need to review previous meeting records.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, I have just one question from Mr.

Black.

Mr.

Black, where are you living at presently?

Well, no, are you in a home or are you in a motel or what?

I'm in a room in a home.

Okay.

That's all I'll need to know.

Thank you.

Yeah, I have a question.

The last time you did ask, said that you're applying for a grant.

Has there been any progress on that?

Well, I can't drive that schedule.

I believe I have the uh well with all the pricing.

I believe I can do I could complete it myself.

I couldn't have a retirement too well, and I intend to.

I've started now.

I don't intend to stop, but it's not realistic anything, 60 days.

You know, there are permits, there are inspections, windows, there's a roof.

I am actively involved with Pinellas recovers and a grant, and we're still discussing that, but I can't run their timeline.

I was gonna continue Dillow and continue what I can do right now, and hopefully soon I hear more.

So have you started um do you have any architects drawing up plans or renovations, electrical plans?

Well, I uh don't intend to change a floor plan.

Uh uh I would like to do I'll get a hold of architects soon to inspect trusses so that they can see where I could continue.

The actual structure uh experienced the effects of Helena and Milton after the fire.

So the structure is there, it's interior work, wiring, etc.

And all the all the inspections are involved.

Mr.

Black, if you do not obtain the grant, do you have the finances to restore the house to its original condition?

I believe yes.

I cannot upgrade basic, I believe I think.

Thank you.

Are you saying that you can only upgrade the basics?

Right.

Restore it to it's yeah, I couldn't upgrade anything.

It would be out maybe kitchen, out maybe baths, it may work.

You can live.

It's important to me to restore power.

I will abandon 95 degrees and no power, probably almost any kind.

Can I ask a question?

Did you say that you're doing the work yourself?

No.

It's not really an owner of contractor.

Do you have some top side number that you're willing to spend on renovating this as opposed to just taking it down and rebuilding?

Taking it down just costs more money.

Top side of $50,000.

The person that's tearing the walls out can put them up.

And he's already passed inspections.

And that's the work he does.

Inspector Larson.

So we were hearing testimony from different people that there's been code that possible cold violations for the last 10 years, but also within the last two and a half years they called the office and stuff.

As code enforcement always responded to their violations, their calls, or I've worked for the city for six months.

I'm honestly not familiar with any history.

But I would also say that what we're here for today is specific to the code section 3-1503B2, which is what was cited and brought to you today.

That's the the uh we we sometimes refer to it as unsafe uh buildings, um, but this is a nuisance code in the city's nuisances code, and it's specific to uh buildings which are abandoned, boarded up for a period of six months, partially destroyed for any period of time, or left for a period of three months in a state of partial construction, um provided that any unfinished building uh which has been under construction for six months or more shall be deemed or presumed to have been uh left for an unreasonably long period of time in the sense of this subsection.

So that's three-1503 nuisances B2, and I think it's it's pretty clear.

I don't it I don't think it's even uh been debated at all by Mr.

Black that that this is a partially destroyed um building that we're dealing with here.

We're mostly we've most of the discussion is centered around what the remedy is and whether or not the remedies uh of uh rehabilitation are is a realistic um remedy.

Uh but I would just say that that's our focus today is on that code section and what we're presenting to the board today regarding um the partial destruction of this building and whether or not um the city should be allowed to go and demolish it at after a certain period of time.

I guess Mr.

Simpson, my question is why is it taking two and a half years for this to get to this point?

Was my question I was raising to the city because the residents are quite upset, and they're looking for us to sort this out, but it's taken a long time for this to get before us, and that's what we're concerned about.

So what I say to that is we have we have um brought cases, we've there are fines, there have been minor abatements performed on the property.

Um, as I stated earlier, this according to the records, this is a homesteaded uh property.

Um, and it is you know, it's a uh residential single-family uh home, and um the remedy of the city taking the action of entering onto private property and demolishing um uh a home that is homesteaded according to the records is is something that we uh are methodical and very thoughtful of.

And so we we are asking for this remedy now, but it's not something that we take lightly.

We do have to put a lot of time and consideration into a case like this.

I have a couple of questions.

Okay.

And for the uh I'm reading the looking at the section 3 1503.

Um 1502 says the building shall be maintained in accordance with the building code, and we've we know this has been going on for at least what two, two and a half years or so.

Three years.

And then in section 1503, I'm looking at the resolution, and it says buildings which are abandoned boarded up for a period of six months, partially destroyed for any period of time, or left for a period of three months in the state of partial construction, provided that any unfinished portion, unfinished building or structure which has been under construction, etc.

etc.

So you know, we're well past the six-month deadline.

We're looking at a uh violation of for of code for unsafe building.

Um, and then up against that, we're looking at the fact that Mr.

Black has a demolition permit only.

That to our knowledge, there's no there's been no engineering study, there are no contract requotes, there's been no necessarily a timeline put together estimates from a contract or some projection to indicate what the entire process involves and how long that's going to take.

Um, based on my knowledge in the industry, if uh I believe that we're looking at a code compliance deadline of was it 60 days?

Yes, sir.

All right.

Um that might be adequate for demo, but without any projection or any numbers and what the future brings without any of that in place.

Uh, my question is what constitutes compliance?

Is it simply the demo permit being executed and and uh the building boarded up which keeps it keep it in its current condition?

Uh I I'm trying to understand here what um what what is compliance?

Is it the building fully restored?

Um the fact that he has demolition permit does not make the violation go away.

So to be in compliance, the house needs to meet minimum codes, which it does not.

Um the city is asking for 60 days.

That's really up to you guys.

Uh if you think it's gonna take longer, what you want to do.

I mean our opinion is at this point.

My personal opinion is he did get a demo permit.

He has done some demolition.

The residents are saying, okay, do you have the money to finish the job, etc.

etc.?

I've spoken to Mr.

Black, I probably got 15-20 hours of speaking with him on the phone, meeting with him.

Um, my recommendation has been to him to get a contractor because that's what we do.

I'm a licensed contractor, I know you are, sir.

Um at this point, it's really a matter of what's gonna do next.

Mr.

Chair, if I may add to that, um the permit that's that's out there now is not something that would this would be sufficient to bring it into compliance.

It's my understanding, it's just a partial demolition.

So it even if he were to complete that permit, he would still have a code violation for the section that we're that's in front of you today.

Right.

Now, if he submitted for a new permit uh for a full rehabilitation with plans and and was able to get a permit that would bring it fully into compliance, then that would change the context of what um it wouldn't necessarily be an abandoned building at that point.

It would be a construction site, but it would still violate the other section that's presented about it not being in compliance with the with the building code or the maintenance code.

Um and at that point, it I would I I saw Mr.

Garrett was coming to the podium, but it it would be within the the jurisdiction of the building official to determine whether or not we would we would continue to pursue the remedy of depth demolition if it was in fact an active construction site with an issue with a permit issued that the scope of the permit would be sufficient to bring the property into compliance.

Mr.

Chairman.

I think we I think the legal uh question is simply because he has a demo permit, do we have to wait till that permit expires?

Does it start the process of getting it into compliance because in the time you could get the other plans and everything?

Or I think that's a legal question for our attorney to answer.

Well, I think the that's I think our answer is on the screen there.

Thank Mr.

Garriott for helping bring that forward.

That uh my question was about you know, let's define compliance, so that because we're playing that against a requested timeline of 60 days, and with only a demo permit in place, um, part of that equation is okay.

So considering all of those factors, what's next?

This defines compliance.

It says complete restoration to meet minimum code requirements to demolish the remaining structure and make the yard and swimming pool safe.

Um so complete compliance in my mind, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr.

Mr.

Larson, Mr.

Garrett, that uh that means the the fence is repaired, the the pool is clean and working properly, the residence is restored, and everything's done per code.

Kevin Garriott, building officials, city clearwater.

That's absolutely correct.

That's what we're looking for.

We're looking for code compliance.

We want the uh the yard, the pool, the house, everything to meet code, minimum standards.

Code is the worst building you can build.

You know, that's uh you can always do more, but you can't do less than that.

That's what we're looking for.

And we're two and a half years into this, and there's been minimal minimal until just a few weeks ago when pushed with this board hearing coming up, that then an interior exploration demo permit was obtained, and I think the value on that was like listed at five thousand dollars or something.

Don't quote me on that.

So it wasn't to tear down the structure, it was to do interior uh exploration.

So the way this board works, the way we work with the board, is if a property has gotten a board order and the date passed and they didn't comply, we turn in a notice of non-compliance.

If we see somebody who is actively working, they're making progress, they're passing inspections, it looks like the road is going to end up in the final place where we want, we are not going to turn in a notice of non-compliance.

Thank you.

We would wait until we get the project done and turn in a notice of compliance.

If there's no activity, if it's dilly-dallying around, pardon the expression, but um, we are going to turn in a notice of non-compliance because it is not bringing the property into code compliance.

That's our objective.

We're not here to tear down properties, we're not here to clean up yards.

We want the homeowner to have a responsibility and to um take care of the property and leave us out of it, basically.

Any questions you have?

I can try and answer them.

Thank you for that.

All right, question.

We got a pool problem and a fence problem.

So are the can you go in and do parcels, or do you have to it's all or nothing for the city to go in?

For what's the question?

If if he did hard working on the interior in the meantime, that pool's sitting out there unprotected and unmaintained.

Right.

That is still a code issue that we could still pursue.

Um, it would probably take a another citation to just address that.

Um I don't know, we'd have to address how to really uh handle that best.

Okay, yeah, we could.

It would still be a because I lose into my next question, which is we've got unsafe build an unsafe building order that has uh a time frame that's flexible and a fine per day.

Then we've got the new nuisance abatement lien uh order which says five days and doesn't have any fines in it.

So what's their what's his incentive to move forward until the city starts decides to step in?

So I'm not sure exactly what we're trying to do.

We may need to do two two different orders.

One to get this building going and give that a day and a fine, and the other one to get that pool taken care of ma'am, please.

Um so to the first question about what I what I your first question I would characterize as as a partial abatement.

Um the city typically doesn't do partial abatements.

We usually, if we get in a an abatement order, like what we're requesting here, is a demolition order, um, which is essentially the city requesting authority to enter onto that property, uh, demolish the structure, remove the pool, um, what would be left with the uh sod and and a grass lot essentially when when the contractor was done.

Um I don't know if if Mr.

Gary wanted to clarify anything there.

Okay, we don't typically go in and just if the windows are messed up, fix the windows and then leave or or fix the pool and then leave the rest.

We don't typically basically concern about the pool.

How do you how do you get that done?

No matter what orders we do.

Yeah, the pool is a health and safety issue.

That's part of that's one that has to be taken care of.

So that's a nuisance in the name of the news contract.

We would defer to the board if the board wanted to put those different structures of the pool and the home uh the home on different timelines.

I think that's we don't I don't think we necessarily have an would have an objection to that.

Uh we we do um I do have we do have an issue with kind of uh piecemealing it because it's difficult for us to manage that.

We don't want to assume some kind of ongoing maintenance obligations over anything on the property.

Um then I think on your your second question of a fine um was I can you refresh me on your second question there?

They just want to make sure they could do two time periods.

Oh, it was the fine, that's what it was the fine.

I'm sorry.

We are not seeking a fine here because there are fines again uh on this property.

We have we have sought fines in the past, okay, and this the fines have have not had a material impact on the outcomes.

All right, so those are still running somewhere on the fines are running.

We've performed minor abatements.

Um at this point, we're looking for an ultimatum.

Right, the fines will only end up as a lien.

So there's no foreclosure action, so the the abatement is the only thing that the city would be able to do in the short term.

Mr.

Plum, you had something off.

I just Mr.

Chairman, I just want to say that it's apparent that the demo permit alone is not sufficient to bring it up to compliance, and so um if Steve wants to make two separate motions, I would support that or just a single can I ask just one more question.

You're saying this is a homesteaded property, but he hasn't lived there in two and a half years, so and you can't live in it.

So how can it be a homesteaded property?

Well, we we um the the case law on the home on homestead is it well, first of all, I'll say that homestead is a is it it's both a constitutional right of a property owner, but it also has a statutory uh place within the code enforcement process.

Um the case law, there's a lot of case law from the courts interpreting homestead because it's a constitutional right, it's interpreted very much in favor of protecting a property owner's ability to claim homestead protection from predators and things like that.

This is this is possible, right?

We as the city we don't typically contest or try to uh litigate the question of homestead.

If it's if it's been determined that by the the property appraisers, the tax collectors, those other uh constitutional officers, we we typically accept that.

Um there are claims for that could be made to question the the validity of the homestead.

That really gets to the intent of the property owner, and if they intend to live there at some point again, if the home was obviously destroyed by a fire here.

Um it's my understanding, you know.

We could we could ask Mr.

Black what he intends to do with the home, uh but the city we we typically don't take the position with regards to the validity of the homestead.

If that's been determined to be homestead by the other constitutional officer, the county officers, then we we typically accept that determination.

Mr.

Chairman, what I wanted I wasn't quite done with.

I was I'm sorry.

Um I think before we take any motions, I think you need to explain to Mr.

Black that the seriousness of the matter that he needs to get his other permits applied for, or please Mr.

Black.

Yes, it's become very clear to the board that just having a demo permit is not sufficient, and you need to get all it everything that into code compliance, so you would start to need to get all those together because we make a motion today, then you have the time that when this motion goes into effect to that time period to get those all together.

So we just want you to be aware of that.

Okay.

So pursue the next permit.

But you need to do it on a very timely basis.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

I like to address that.

I understand my peers uh consideration about the pulling yard bus really just putting a band-aid on the whole problem.

It should be, and I understand Mr.

Black's predicament.

I also appreciate the residents' predicament that live near and around him.

There's a lot of ifs on Mr.

Black's part.

It's either all the city's been very patient for three years, so of the residents, and we have to take that into serious consideration today instead of putting everything to continuance.

It's either all or nothing, Mr.

Black.

You have to do something, and you're not doing enough.

Well, I I didn't start to stop.

I started to continue from here on.

But you you keep getting continuous for three years.

I got a permit, and I hadn't before.

Well, I was that's not sufficient.

You know, I that's why I had a lawn service and other things during the time I got cancer diagnosis the month before the fire.

And I didn't think I could handle both.

I'm in now.

That's why I pulled uh explore exploratory invo, and I can I intend to continue.

I just I just don't think you're gonna be able to pull anything off before in 60 days.

Well, 60 days would not be reasonable to complete the project, but I think I'll try to do something with the pool.

The biggest obstacle for me is the power.

I'd like to restore power.

It's if the house is powered, the pool pumps power.

But uh many of the nuisance complaints seem to be mostly about exterior, and I'm working interior.

So I can do more security security and pool.

Yes, I think I was saying thank you, sir.

We appreciate it.

Based on my understanding from what the city has offered, if there's significant progress, then the door may still be open.

But I'm ready for the board to think Steve's ready.

Offer uh offer something.

Well, are we doing a new nuisance abatement on the property as a whole to start with that seems to be the way it's going?

I would I mean I think that's the way the city has positioned it now, so unless there's so that my my question again to follow up and just make sure we're clear on it.

If we did a second nuisance abatement just for the pool and the fence, would the city take act would they go out and just take care of that under that separate order?

I'll have to defer that to the to the uh building official.

I that it's really uh I I don't see it as a legal question because I do think that we could legally separate them, but I do see it as a potential logistical issue.

I madam clerk is given.

Okay, well, so there's also a question in terms of to you whether we did them separately or just do it as one.

Um logistically, I think to go in and take out just the pool would be I mean we could do it, it would be more expensive to do that way than if you had a contractor just come in and do the whole site.

Um so I guess yeah, we could do it under the one, or would you need a separate one?

We could do uh all under one.

That that was really what we had in mind, and we have done on other properties and other people have done that kind of thing.

What but how do we get the pool taken care of?

Well, what would be the question?

What would be the benefit of doing that?

I mean, right now it's loaded as a whole, and and I mean, based on our what we've heard from uh from the city, if he handles the pool, then the pool is off the table as part of the overall, then it's just down to the house and the other structures.

So I I don't understand the benefit of separating it out and going through that.

Because one needs to be done right now.

Well, understood it needs to be done right now, but even if we ordered it now, there's still going to be a you know, we're still following the rules and the guidelines and the timelines.

It's you know, so if we do the uh do the order as as requested, then um right now it could have been three years ago.

I mean, it doesn't make it any safer now.

Gotcha.

And you've got people coming in from the neighborhood saying, hey, you know, we got the arrest, we got this, we got that.

So okay, so we just go with one.

I think we just make a motion for nuisance abandonment.

I agree.

I want to say something yes, yes.

I think our job is to determine is the code in violation or not.

It clearly is that code that was specifically up there, that's what we have to address.

And as a volunteer to this board, I've never been never thought I'd have to decide does someone house get torn down or not.

It's but it's not that.

Yeah, if you could put that back up again, please.

It is simply what section 3-1503 nuisances says.

This property has been in this condition for more than six months, it's in violation, and I think that is the simplicity of what we need to address.

Thank you.

Yeah.

All right, Mr.

Chair, if I may.

There was a question that was raised to me in this on the sidebar, and um, in terms of how the pool is is a part of this case.

The pool is a structure, um, its current condition is is clear that it's partially destroyed, uh, and it is a structure that's subject to the building code.

So we um that's our that's our position as a city in terms of how the because normally in a typical case we would bring the pool um separately as a as a abandoned pool nuisance.

So we do have a uh a separate section that we can um bring those issues separately, but we have not separated them in this case before you, but we we include them as uh uh destroyed structures on the property, and we're trying to include them all together.

I understand the the concern in terms of the urgency.

I think the board could could separate timelines legally, um, but it does create a logistic issue because if we do get the authority to um uh enter an abate today, um if that time comes first off, there would be a deadline where uh we would come back with that as the building official described in terms of of the non the non-compliance affidavit.

So that would be another another uh point of consideration for the board.

Assuming that it's still in violation at that point, then we it we come to the time that we actually are going to perform the abatement, we would hire contractors, get you know, get quotes, and then um carry it out through our procurement process.

So we would be notifying um the property owner of that process as it was ongoing.

So I do think it could pre create some issues on that on the back side of the process there in terms of finding different contractors to do different things and then the city entering the property, doing some work, leaving, coming back later and doing some uh additional work.

Um those are obviously we're gonna follow the direction of the board today, so if that's the pleasure of the board, we'll figure out a way and we'll be back again to discuss it further.

Uh but today we've asked for everything to be um bundled together and and for Madam Clerk and and the others that have asked that that's the why we grouped them together.

They're all structures subject to the building code, and they're all uh partially destroyed in it in an in a nuisance state.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'd like to make a nuisance of payment single motion, please.

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

The violation was corrected prior to the wrong one.

Page seven page seven, sorry.

Yeah, I withdraw that.

Thank you.

Okay.

I was on the wrong page, sorry.

I moved to enter an order, finding the respondent in violation of the code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order.

Excuse me.

Is that the right one?

Yes, it's May 29th.

I believe they were asking for 60 days, May 29th, yeah.

Not five days, May 29th.

May 29th correction.

Not five days, May 29th, 2026.

Let's get the correct date on this.

Does it may say May 29th?

I can we just hear from the city to make sure we're we're getting everything that they're asking for.

Here it is right here, right?

I just want to make sure.

Okay.

All right, may 29.

So it'd be exactly like that.

I'm sorry, I was in the sidebar conversation again, but I as far as I understand as far as I've heard, I don't have any objections so far.

Did are you okay?

All right, just want to make sure that they we're looking for.

All right, let's do it.

Okay, so I moved to enter an order, finding the respondent violation of the code and requiring the respondent if the structure is not in compliance by May 29th, 2026.

The city has I don't know where I yeah, the city may take responsible actions, including entry onto the property to a bait and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable costs, 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, and settle such lien.

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor, aye.

All opposed.

Is this all together?

Bring that gavel down.

Is this all together?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, okay.

Aye.

One violation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Larson.

Thank you, Mr.

Black.

Thank you, Mr.

Garrett.

Thank you, citizens.

All right.

Moving on to our next item.

Case 4426, my respondents, Cleveland Bluff Cleveland Gulf to Bay LLC at 1417 Cleveland Street in violation of code for exterior surfaces.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Oh, I missed one.

No, I didn't.

No.

No, 3.8.

Yeah, you're okay.

Yeah, fine.

Did you want to say anything first?

Or please step forward and state your name and address.

Uh Mick Anderson.

I'm the property manager for 1417 Cleveland, or I couldn't go up to the ALC.

Thank you.

Real estate.

Thank you very much.

We'll hear from uh do we do we do an admit or deny?

All right.

Uh Mr.

Anderson, do you admit violation or do not?

I um yes, I admit the violation.

The uh we're ready to go.

Um we started on it now, but I don't have it completed yet.

Gotcha.

Okay.

So I and I've got a time line here which I can show you that I've you know the structure.

I can show you pictures of the starting of what we've got.

We've got a whole bunch of setup.

The building needs some work.

Gotcha.

We're gonna do our first motion and then we'll have you back up to speak.

Thank you.

I move to find there's time in violation of the code is referred to the affidavit in this case.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Inspector Sudith, you have the floor.

Vicky Suddith, Code Compliance Inspector with the City of Clearwater.

This is for property located at 1417 Cleveland Street, case number 4426.

There is one violation here for code section 3-1502 B for exterior services.

The notice of violation was sent on December 19th of 2025 with a compliance date of January 19th of 2026.

Certified mail receipt was received on 1229, 2025.

This is a picture of the property.

Um when I originally looked at it back in October.

This was before the violation was sent out.

Um I got a call out to the property, and this is what it looked like at that time.

These are pictures of the back of the property, the side, the very back.

These pictures were taken in February.

And then these pictures were taken today.

I did go back out there.

Um nothing has been done to the property.

It's progressively getting worse.

Um the grass was finally cut sometime over the last couple days.

The back of the property.

Compliance could be met for the exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structural and decorative elements of any building wall.

I'm sure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, roost rust, loose material, and faded peeling paint.

Requesting compliance on or before April 25th of 2026, or a fine of 150 dollars per day for violation if compliance is not met.

Thank you.

Mr.

Anderson.

Yes.

Um I can get most of that done by April 25th, right?

And I'd like to see if it's possible to separate this concept.

And the the there's three sides of the building that are easily handled, right?

The back is a mess.

And I need a lot of prep work of that.

I mean, I've got I've got 20 years of poor maintenance, but we've only had the building a couple of years.

So we're and we hadn't had the funds to do much work on it.

Finally I've got the place all filled up, and I'm starting to get enough funds to be able to do a little bit of work on it.

So I'm just the I can absolutely get by the April 25th.

I've got the timeline here.

So I can get the painting done for the first the east side, the front, and the west side.

We're the option with a condition that I'm not sure about murals.

There's a city mural on the side of that building on the west side, and I have to find out what the rules are about murals.

I can't I don't think I can just paint over a mural that's been done.

This one's been there like 15 years.

So if I can paint over it, I will.

If I can't paint over it, then we have to treat that separately.

And then the back, if I could just have more time to do that because I've got three four weeks of just wires and plumbing, and I've got four different AC things that are I've moved ACs to the top from the back, and people before that had done that too, and they just put boards up and they did all sorts of stuff and I got a handle a bunch of stuff back there.

So my point is that yes, I can do three sides by the 25th of April, but I need another 30 days to be able to do the rest.

So there's 60 days would you think would be enough to get the project fully completed?

Yes.

All right.

So we'll make it May 27th.

Uh whatever the question for the Secretary for our May 27th for the next meeting actually.

Well, I have a question for this better miss.

How long has this case been going on with Vicky?

Well, I started talking to him back in October about it.

I didn't send a violation out right away because when we spoke, he told me that he was going through the grant program.

Um several conversations we had.

He told me that that it was in the process.

Um, but then when I spoke to um he last week, she said that the paperwork had never been turned in.

She had um never received anything more from him.

And then when I spoke to him at the code board last month, he told me that paperwork was turned in.

But according to Vicky on Friday, nothing's been turned in for it.

So it's been going on for about six months then.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I don't really think I think I told her I was in progress on that, uh the the paperwork for that, but I never turned it in because I could never quite get the owner's agreement to do his part because that grant is it takes about 35 percent 35 or more three 35 and 45 percent owner responsibility, and I never quite got his agreement to do that.

So now we're just doing this without trying to go through the grant program.

So that delayed me from doing this because I was trying to push it through that because we wanted to do signage and we want to do parking, we wanted to do several things, but I couldn't quite get the owner agreement on there.

So now we've up now with this deadline coming up.

I said we've got to do something, and I finally got the agreement to do this.

So that's been you know the delay so far.

What happened with the grant program?

It's still there.

You could do it.

My owner just didn't want to do the steps necessary.

He that goes get alone.

Yeah, and I kept trying to go get that to happen, and it just didn't happen.

So I had to opt when we come to the point where like we've got to get the building done because it's causing too many problems.

So I we came up with this other solution not doing the grant of just doing it on that, not doing all the signs, not doing all the parking, just get the painting done.

So the city is requesting compliance on them before uh April 25th.

Uh any discussion about that from the board in terms of additional time.

We're sticking with that.

I'm okay to extend it to May 27th, and it feels like you can get it done.

Okay, yeah.

Um, so 60 days.

Yeah, okay.

Um good.

Ready?

Yes, sir.

I moved in or order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before May 27th, 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 lane is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose collect and s or settle such lane.

I have a second.

So all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Opposed.

Opposed.

All right.

Motion carries it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Next on our agenda is 310, case 46-26.

Fine respondents affordable properties management realty LLC.

TRE at 1111 Court Street in violation of code for exterior surfaces and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Inspector Sudith you have the floor is there anyone here to speak on this.

Hello there.

Sir can you state your name and Michael Shushoni.

In front of the microphone please sir.

Michael Shimshoni I reside at 4027.

So your address please Shimshone S H I M S H O N I.

Thank you.

It happens every time so thank you.

I reside at 4027 32nd Street North in St.

Petersburg.

I'm a real estate broker with affordable realty.

We manage the trust we manage the property for the trust and and I would like to explain the uh the nature of the violation.

Okay we're gonna what we typically do is we're gonna hear from the inspector first and then we'll have you come back up and address this.

Denise no do you admit or deny the violation sir?

I'm sorry do you admit or deny the violation?

I I uh I admit all right thank you sir we'll call you back up may I have a first motion please I move to find the respondent violation of the code is referred to in the affidavit in this case may I have a second second all in favor?

Aye all opposed motion carries inspector Sudith you have the floor.

Vicky Sutter for the city of clearwater code compliance inspector this is for case number 42-26 for 1111 Court Street there is two violations here code section 3-1502 C1 and C3 for door and window maintenance and put section 3-1502 B for exterior surfaces.

The notice of violation was sent on December 12th of 2025 with the compliance date of January 12th of 2026 and the certified mail receipt was received on December 22nd of 2025 this is a picture of the front of the building on December 10th again on January 29th and then again this morning compliance can be met for the doors and window by removing all boards and covering from all doors and windows ensure all doors and windows are in good repair including window frames, sills and panes 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 mild restless material faded and feeling paint we're requesting compliance hour before April 30th 2026 or a fine of 150 per day for violation of the violation is if well at compliance is not met sorry thank you sir okay tell us about this step for the microphone if you would thank you well um since uh March of last year we've been working with the uh uh some uh outfit at the city of clearwater that has grants and give grant money to redo the whole facade of the uh of the place uh they gave us a list of items that they requested and we've been we've been given everything they asked we send them stuff and then it takes about another month and we get another thing and anyway the last thing they requested was insurance that we would get to do the work just for the specific project they said they have the money the grant assigned for the for the project but now the only hurdle was was the insurance and we got the insurance was a problem getting insurance because um old insurance company would say we'll give it the insurance after you you take care of the situation well how you're gonna take care of the situation if you can get insurance so it was like back and forth look the uh the items of the uh of the wood of the plywood we can correct them fairly quick by by April for sure we'll have them ready the only thing we're gonna do the job twice because if they don't do it once and then once we get the grant we got to remove the whole thing and we do we're gonna put a new glass glass front on the whole on the whole thing so if if there's no patience among the uh the city to to wait for the work to be done then we'll just go and do it and when we get the permit we'll redo it again that's all I can say so have you been awarded the grant based on providing insurance well no no the the grant was of was was uh given to was granted to us based on the fact that they wanted to I guess to facelift the facade of uh of court street there was some sort of project and um this this wood was there since the hurricane you know put this to protect the the building it was not meant to begin with to be uh permanent but temporary but apparently this not uh this has not been taken care of and we've been waiting for the city to uh well

The the grant was uh was was uh given to was granted to us based on the fact that they wanted to, I guess, to facelift the facade of uh of court street.

There was some sort of project.

And um these this wood was there since the hurricane, you know, put this to protect the building.

It was not meant to begin with to be uh permanent but temporary, but apparently this not uh this has not been taken care of, and we've been waiting for the city to uh well, like I said, they approved us the gun is later, they assigned us uh certain number, uh, and they've been asking certain things.

The only last item they were requested and it took a little longer than anticipated was the insurance for the project itself.

Uh there's insurance on the building, but as there was no insurance on the construction.

So I think we got it resolved.

We have to pay the extra to that result.

And have you talked to you?

Sorry.

Have you talked to the city to see how fast you can proceed now?

No, we just sent this this uh notice of uh from the insurance about two weeks ago.

We haven't got a response from the city.

We'll we'll probably it takes time, they don't respond quickly.

It takes usually about a month from the time we sent what they asked to the time they respond.

So we gotta work with their schedule.

Uh but like I said, if if we realize the time isn't the essence here and it's not gonna happen, then we'll do it either way.

Um one of the one of the two.

Sir, why did you wait uh so long to contact your insurance company?

No, we we we we contacted the insurance, they wouldn't they won't give us the insurance.

You said that you didn't contact them till two weeks ago.

No two weeks ago we got the policy.

We're able to get the policy.

We would just we just got it, and we took we applied to many insurance companies that wouldn't take it, they wouldn't, they wouldn't take that's what I've been getting at.

Why it took you so long to find the insurance?

Because it wasn't fine anyone.

Finally, we're able to find someone.

Okay, it's not that we didn't want our interest was listen, there's there's money to be to be fixed the place up, not just to fix the wood, but do the whole facade supposed to be glass front on the whole thing, and with multiple, you know, it will look really nice.

I mean, I saw the plans.

But the schedule of timing is not it's not up to us.

It's it's the city that's to approve it.

They approved it, but they have the needs to uh get the money.

And until we get the money, it's not that we can do to do their job.

Like I said before, if if we come to a point where we're gonna be in violation of uh gonna have stuff to get penalties, of course, we will do what we have to do.

You know, we just change the wood, paint it, and get in compliance, which the building of fictions officials said being in compliance code is just the minimum.

We don't want to be the we want to get it nicer stole from what is your affects.

I'm sorry, it affects also the ability to rent the place.

Sure.

Okay.

What is your estimated timeline in as far as being able to do it the way you want to get your grant and do the things that you want to do?

About a month.

Okay, we finish it up.

The job itself shouldn't take more than a week or two.

Those three week.

430 is a month now.

So I don't know if the first month is 35 days, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, okay.

All right.

Any other questions from the board?

Can I get a motion?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before April 30th, 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 to each violation gets continues to exist.

If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is fine.

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

Can I get a second?

Second.

Do you want to favor?

Yeah, okay.

Did you say April 30th?

April 3rd.

30th.

30th.

Okay, we just didn't hear it clearly.

Yeah, I heard third.

Thank you.

So the correct date is the April 30th.

Thank you.

Um all in favor?

I'll all opposed motion carries.

Thank you, sir.

Next case 311.

Case four 47-26.

Fine respondents, Northwest Properties, LLC at 1235 Nicholson Street in violation of code for trailer parking and residential rental business tax receipt and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on that?

Inspector Dixon, you have the floor.

After New Board Inspector Dickson Co-compliance Inspector for the City of Clearwater.

One violation of code section 3-1407A2 for travel trailer parked between the principal structure and right away and section 3-2302 for a lack of residential rental business tax receipt.

I gave them uh about a month for the BTR and about three weeks to move the travel trailer off the property or behind the fence.

The trailer out in the front yard on the date uh notice was issued, and there's still a trailer in the front yard today.

There was a BTR at the property in 2003 for something other than residential rental.

There's no ETR on file.

Uh the utilities are in uh David Valentine's name, and the uh this is when he turned the utilities on, and they were asking for a lease to turn the utilities on, so it's a rental.

Uh compliance will be met for the travel trailer by removing the travel trailer from the front of the property.

The trailer can be placed in the back of the side yard provided to be screened by six foot high hedge fence or wall, and it must also be parked on approved surface.

And for the lack of business tax receipt, you can apply and obtain a business tax receipt for the rental.

Request compliance on or before May 1st and request a fine of 150 dollars per day for the travel trailer violation and a fine of $50 a day for the BTR.

I am in contact with the owner of this the uh the renters are given the owner trouble.

He says he's gonna evict them, but uh and the sea needing approved, so here we are.

Excellent.

Any questions from the board?

I believe that would be two separate motions, one for the BTR and one for the other violation.

C'est legal counselors nodding his head.

So can I get a motion on the uh BTR, please?

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

Second, second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Carries.

Can I get a second motion, please?

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

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

This is for the BTR, so that would be $50 per day.

That's okay.

Yeah, doing the travel trailer first.

There you go.

Very good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

150.

I'm gonna start that over.

Okay.

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.

We have a second.

Second.

All right.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Can I get a motion on the uh do we need to do a first motion on the second violation as well?

I think so.

I'm thinking separate, right?

Yeah, I would separate the second violation of the business tax receipt.

May I get a first motion, please?

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

Second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

I have a second motion.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations honored before May 1st, 2026.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $50, $50 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.

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector.

Our next case is 313.

Case 49-26.

Fine respondents.

Good Shepherd Boulevard LLC at 1746 Drew Street in violation of code for exterior storage.

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

Is there anywhere here to speak on that?

Yep.

Yes.

Sir, you can use step forward to the microphone and share your name and address with us.

I'll fix one of them 1746 of the one more time.

I'm about to put him in.

Sworn in, sir.

Were you sworn in?

Did you take the oath?

Yeah.

No.

I am representative of uh the owner of uh property.

That's okay.

I just need this for anyway.

Do you swear a firm to tell the truth throughout your entire test round?

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right.

Step up to the microphone a little bit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Or it's for the final problem.

That's okay.

Sir, do you admit or deny the violation?

Yeah.

You admit the violation?

Do you admit or deny the motion?

Denied.

We cleared it already.

All right.

Sir, if you care to have a step back, we'll hear from the inspector.

All right.

Good afternoon.

Board.

Street.

There's one violation here for code section 3-1502 F1 and F2 for exterior storage.

This is the date this violation was sent out with the client's date, and we did get the certified mail receipt back.

I have been in contact with the owner.

Maybe there was some miscommunication over the past week or so, but uh you'll see with the photos.

Uh back in November, we went out to this property.

You might remember this one.

They had the hauling trailer running as a food truck that was hooked up to the uh plumbing electric out front.

That was taken care of.

But if you remember from those other photos, there were some items being stored outdoors in the rear of the property.

Uh so there's a picker for an engine, some glass, there was a bunch of barrels, buckets, all sorts of items.

Uh I guess the old ductwork for the building.

Hold on there to check a bit.

Let's see if they'll work from here.

She's heard.

So if these are uh not clear enough, let me know.

But it looks like the PowerPoint struggle a little bit.

There was kitchen equipment being stored outdoors.

I went back after the compliance date.

This was in January.

Uh, after the compliance state, similar items were still out.

I believe this time I hadn't been in contact with the owner yet, but after this date we did get in contact and the property was cleaned up.

But when I went back the other day on the or just today, this morning on the 25th, uh a lot of the bakery equipment was then again being stored outdoors.

Uh there's a bunch of pipes from the plumbing that was ripped up or being stored underneath the black truck in the rear, and then there's a few items around the dumpster, like a uh old bucket, old large rain bucket, and a pallet.

I'm sorry, those are small.

Let's see if this sorry, it's still not catching up.

So I did try calling the owner again.

I left a message to say, hey, we just need to clean up these few items, but we're still not completely there.

So compliance being met for the exterior storage by removing from the grounds of the property, all items not meant for outdoor use and ensuring all items meant to be thrown out are placed inside the dumpster.

And requesting the client sign before April 25th, 2026, or the fine of 150 dollars per day for violation for each day the violations continue to exist.

Questions?

And the pictures you showed us they were smaller, and I couldn't quite make out the date you showed us pictures from today showing non-compliance.

I'll try it, see if it'll load in.

So it looks like they're doing good now.

This is the same bakery equipment that I've asked to be put inside before.

It was inside, and then it made its way back outside.

I believe it's a bedroom bread racks, because it's a bakery.

Yeah, yeah.

And I'm seeing a date of 325 on that, and the yeah, that was this more.

And these are the pipes.

I asked them before to please remove these from the ground of the property, not store them underneath the truck, and then anything around the dumpster has to make its way into the dumpster.

You can't just be storing items around the dumpster.

So that's where it was asking.

There's a little bit left to do, but it's definitely an improvement from what it was.

Okay.

And your compliance date is 425, right?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Anybody else?

Can I get a oil picture say it?

Oh, what's that?

The pictures say it.

Exactly.

Do you want to speak with the gentleman?

Yes, please.

What can you tell us about this?

What are we going to do about this?

It's just the owner.

He's out of state right now, and this is rented uh properties, so they may be in order that he's out of state because of this.

They are doing that.

But before a couple of days ago, I went myself there and check it.

There was nothing like that before.

So it's maybe easy to do it because he is not here right now.

He will be here next week.

Okay.

So we will take care of that.

Excellent.

Yeah.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Can I get a first motion on somebody else's questions?

First motion, please.

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

So thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Can I get a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation on or before.

What was our date, Daniel?

Sorry, April.

Thank you.

April 25th, 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 propose collect or settle such line.

I have second second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Next case.

3.15 case 51-26.

Fine respondents.

Del Twain Holmes at 3087 Cherry Lane in violation of code for development code violation.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Yes, sir.

Would you come forward and state your name and address?

My name is Del Twain Holmes.

My address is 3087 Cherry Lane, Clearwater, Florida, 33759.

Thank you.

And you're the owner of the property?

Yes, sir.

All right.

Thank you.

We will uh Sir, do you had uh do we admit it?

Do we admit or deny now or later?

Yes.

Good now.

All right.

Sir, do you admit the right uh or deny the violation?

Uh deny.

All right.

If you'll have a seat, we're gonna hear from the inspector, then we'll have you back up.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, board.

John Stevens, co-compliance inspector for the city of Clearwater.

Again, this is case number 51 26, uh reference 3087 Cherry Lane.

And again, this is a zoning violation, so this is something that you guys typically don't see uh that often, so it's got a couple little uh different things inside of it.

Uh so we're using two code sections here for one violation on this property.

Uh we have section one oh four B, which is the development code violation, and you can see as a description here, talks about no building structure, water, or land should be used or occupied, and no building structure or land shall be developed unless in conformity with all the provisions of the zoning district in which it is located, all at the regulations and all development approvals.

Uh code section 6-102C for non-conforming structures.

A non-conforming structure shall not be altered, enlarged, or changed in any way that increases its non-conformity.

Any structure or site improvement may, however, be altered to decrease its non-conformity.

So what we're talking about in this case, this property is currently zoned as what's called LMDR or low medium density residential.

So there are certain standards in there when you build a property, it can only be built a certain way.

Uh LMDR properties have a max height requirement of 30 feet.

This building is already over the 30-foot max, but it was annexed into the city.

So this was previously built in the county and it was okay when it was built in the county.

But now that it's inside of the city, even though that we basically say it's a legal uh non-conformity, as far as we're not going to say you have to do something to your building to make it into that conformity.

We say that you can't do anything that will make your nonconformity more or larger.

So for this property, we're going to be talking about things that have been added on to the roof structure that is increasing that non conformity.

So notice of violation uh was mailed and posted uh on December 30th for the compliance date of January 31st of this year, uh, and the certified mail was signed for on January 23rd of this year.

This is a picture of 387 Cherry Lane from Google Maps from back in February of 25.

And you can see it's quite a large structure there, but if you look at the very top of the structure, basically up here, that's basically like a mechanical room or something like that for the elevator, I believe it is or whatnot, but there's nothing else here on the top of it.

Um this was actually brought to my attention by um our department director, Lauren Maskey.

Um, as these end up popping up on top of there, and she happened to notice it and and notify me of it.

So this was as December 30th uh of this of last year when I actually sent out the violations, and as you can see, there were several, I guess you call them awnings or almost like a pergola or something like that uh attached to the roof structure uh with some fans, and it looks like there's a hot tub and several other things that are up there.

Uh this was as of February 2nd.

Um, after I talked to Mr.

Holmes on the phone and after he had gotten the um the notice of the violation, nothing has changed there, and then this as of yesterday on the right, March 24th.

Again, nothing has changed.

Um when I talked to Mr.

Holmes on the phone, he was very cooperative.

I think he wants to try to figure out some way to deal with this, and I directed it towards our our zoning department, and then we have somebody here from zoning to talk about this as this case moves forward.

So compliance can be met for both code sections by basically removing the added structures from the rooftop.

Since it's a legal non-conforming structure and you can't increase that non-conformity, there wouldn't be a permit that would be issued for this or any type of variance I think that would be granted if I'm understanding things correctly from the zoning department.

So we are requesting compliance by April 25th of this year, or a fine of 250 dollars a day for each day that the violation continues to exist.

Thank you, sir.

We want to hear from the gentleman from zoning regarding this.

Good afternoon, board and members of the board.

Ted Kozak, planning development planning manager.

Uh the case you have in front of you, what's been said is true.

It's in the LMDR zoning district.

All structures are mapped capped at 30 feet in that zoning district.

It's probably my understanding that the house was under construction and built, and then annexed to the city to receive city services because that's that's our our way to attract people into the city.

So I pulled the old uh not that old, it was built in 2012.

So the the plans of the house that looks like it's 45 feet to the flat roof, 5110 to the top of a I think that projection is a stair, just looking at the floor plan, so it's like a nine feet higher than so the building itself is 15 feet over the maximum.

The uh now structures on the roof are uh about 12 feet, uh 22 feet uh higher than the maximum of the zoning district.

So there is no path to request.

There was a case requested in our portal yesterday for flexibility for height, which I uh closed today because you can't ask for that.

So there is no path forward.

The structures need to be removed.

The only um path forward in the future would be uh maybe ground mounted things like this, but there's nothing that can be placed on the roof that could be uh legalized.

Thank you.

Mr.

Holmes.

So what about all of this?

Yeah, um I purchased the house in September of last year, and uh I left the country and I left some people in charge of you know doing some stuff to it.

Um we had no clue, well, I had no clue about what all this stuff you know was about.

Um it is extremely hot in Florida, of course, and there's no way that I could put anything up there that would shade the roof.

Um and we did that that top part that comes, it's like a part of it's on the side of the elevator shaft, but those are the the stairs that go up to the roof, and they're they're about nine, it's about nine feet that extra little spot, and those were built, those perglars were built the same height as that.

Um just for you know, just to have something up there for shade.

Um just kind of disappointed because it's been a lot of money for that house, and uh there's I'm just trying to find any type of weight that I can keep them up there.

Um it did require a couple of cranes to get uh stuff up there.

Um and I'm just trying to find out if I have to take them down, what course I have to do to get all of that stuff down from up there.

Okay.

Did you understand what the what the compliance officers were saying and what zoning was saying is this that there's no path forward in a way to keep them?

Yeah, so that would mean your only resolution is to just to take them down based on the what the how the code reads.

Yeah, okay waste of money.

Understood, sir.

Well, sorry, we can't help you with that part of it, but uh it's our job to make sure that things comply with the code and people find a path forward to get things corrected.

Um I'd say I see it says April 25th, because I'm gonna have to it's gonna be a lot of work getting getting it those structures down.

Um I'm gonna need more time than that if if that's what it's going to be.

Um I'm gonna definitely need more time.

How much time do you think you need to get them now?

I would say 60 to 90 days.

Um because they it's you know they're bolted to the to the roof, and we have this is they're just not sitting up there, they're bolted to the structure of the roof.

Um, and I'm gonna have to get somebody to come back out to assess and see how we get those down because we can't take them down, we have to take them down in one piece.

They can't take all that stuff apart because it was assembled up there, so it's gonna it's gonna take a little time to get them disassemble and get them down from off the roof.

And one of the percolors is covering uh a sauna, one of the shades are cut yes, one of them, yeah, because it is it's it's it's one long one, and then one of them, which I would like to keep, it comes, it just comes right off of that piece that the um the staircase comes out onto the roof.

So I just have one that's coming just over a little bit, maybe 10 feet out, but the one is covering a spa, and then the other one is covering um just the sitting area.

Okay, I have a question for Mr.

Stevens.

Um you meant we were talking about uh some structural pergolas that were installed in a hot tub, is that correct?

It looks like a hot tub up there from my view.

I can't say 100% that's what it is, but it looks like a hot.

So if if there is a hot tub up there, does that need to be removed as well?

That would be a better question, I believe.

For something on that one.

I I don't have the answer to that.

There's not no habitable structures allowed on that roof.

That's why I won't be advised people when they're building a house, give yourself some leeway.

It's 30 feet high.

This if this was 30 feet high, you still wouldn't be able to put anything up there.

So if it was uncovered and you had nothing, you could leave it as is, but any house over 30 feet, you can't put anything up there because it's habitable.

He could leave he could leave the sauna up there.

No, they can't because that that's no, you cannot.

That sauna would it has height, so any height, but because the height is 45, you can't even add an inch.

It's already exceeding.

So if you were at 27 feet, you have a three-foot high tub, maybe, but you can't cover it, so we tell people hopefully you're not gonna get hot up there because you can't add any kind of cover structure.

So that's why I advise people to build in some room to be able to put some sheet structures on a roof.

Would it be safe to say that anything that was added post-purchase has to come off that roof?

It based on the permit that I saw, there was only the staircase, and that's it, nothing else up there.

So I'm just going by the roof plans that were in the the county permit.

So gotcha.

Okay, Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

If I may for just for the record, the code section that's been cited says that a non-conforming structure shall not be altered, enlarged or changed in any way that increases its non-conformity.

That's what's in front of you.

So technically, there shouldn't have been a permit even allowed for the stairs.

Okay.

Say that again.

She's working on it.

Any anything anything on this this permit was there at the time of construction.

So you can see the the stairway projection that that is allowed, it was there nine feet.

Okay, but just the entire roof was just stair empty kind of everything here, you know, is allowed.

You thank you.

All right, so that remains that the pergolas and the spa essentially are the items that have to go, but the stairway does not just for clarification.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

And Mr.

Holland, when you had all this added at the time, you didn't have this.

No, and the spa, I don't see how the spa could be a problem at all because it's it's only it sits about this high, and that's the and it has a top on it.

And the the elevator, I mean the staircase shaft is up there, and then the they when they built the house, the house has a um a drainage system for the roof for you to be able to it it had a uh it had a spa up there already.

They took it down, it had a outdoor kitchen, it had a couple of different things up there before I you know before me, they just took it down before they before I purchased it because it sat there for I mean a couple of years in a trust.

So when I purchased it, I had no clue about any of this, and I spent probably about ninety thousand dollars on the roof alone.

Um that includes the purview, you know.

So for me to have to take my spa down like the programas, okay.

I'll get umbrellas, but I don't see how the spa could cause any threat to anything in that area.

I don't have neighbors.

I own the parcel next door.

Um I just it's just disappointing very disappointing to me.

Um very disappointing.

Understood.

Unfortunately, our reference is the the building code and what the building code states, and that's the the reference that we're obliged to follow here.

So and per the inspector, it's uh you know anything that adds any height since it's already over height is a violation of the code.

Am I correct, Mr.

Stevens?

Staircases the height.

So that's correct.

Uh I think the only thing that's in there, correct me if I'm wrong, is it does talk about the like mechanical rules for like an elevator?

That can be allowed, but besides that, that's that's the only thing.

Very good.

So the spa cannot be allowed, even though it does say this see the height requirement.

That would be correct.

Okay.

Yes.

I have a question.

Is the 250 correct or is it supposed to be 150 on this?

Uh the 250 is correct.

Any other questions?

No.

Can I get a declaration of violation?

All right, motion.

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

We have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

And I get a second uh declaration.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before April 25th, 2026.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of 250 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.

Mr.

Chairman, before we vote, we have it, we have uh discussed our continuums.

Giving him more time.

Giving him more time.

That's it be brought up.

Well, I'm open to the board's recommendation.

I think 60 days is reasonable.

What Mr.

Holmes was 60 days be enough?

I would say 90 because I have to it's a lot to disassemble and I have to find a crane company, their schedule.

So this is this is nothing that I can just go do tomorrow or in the next week or the next month.

I have to probably have to call the company that did the purple and get them to see when they can come out to find the best course to get it disassemble and to get it, you know, get it taken down.

Um so I'm I would ask for at least 90 days.

Um I know by then definitely I can definitely have everything taken down by then.

I'm for that.

I agree.

All right, okay, good.

Sounds good to us.

May I have a motion, please?

I moved.

So I'm gonna correct the original motion.

Uh I moved to enter an order requiring the respondents to correct the violations on or before what would that be?

Uh June.

June 23rd.

June 23rd, 2026.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of 250 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 lane.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion.

Thank you, Mr.

Holmes.

Good luck.

Thank you, board.

Next case 3.19, case 55-26.

Fine respondents.

Decade companies income properties and 101 Coronado in violation of code for sidewalk signs and issue order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

Yes, sir.

Please come forward and station a address.

How are we doing, y'all?

My name is Keaton Kelly.

Address is 101 Coronado Drive, Clearwater Beach, Florida.

And what's your relationship with properties?

I'm the general manager of the property.

Yeah.

Thank you, sir.

We'll come back to that.

Yeah.

My apologies.

What item number are we on?

I'm sorry, did I miss one?

Yeah.

You missed 316.

Okay, we'll go back to 316 currently.

I overstepped my balance.

Um 319.

Are we on Bayside Harbors?

We're on 3.19.

Yes.

Decking.

Uh companies income properties.

1010.

Sorry about signs.

Sir, do you admit or deny the oh?

Sorry.

You admit or denied by Jedi.

All right, thank you.

Oh, we're on 3.16.

Well, 3.19, I missed one.

Inspector Burrell?

Steve Broker, site inspector for the city of Clearwater.

Um, the case the case is in compliance of today's although the permit has not been applied uh active.

Uh the signs are removed on the property.

So just asking the board for declarational violation.

Okay.

Very good.

Um, did you want to come back and just talk about what occurred?

Uh so from our perspective, we're just looking for some more clarification on uh what's going on here.

So I took over as general manager of the property in August of last year.

Uh the first violation was in May of 2025.

Um, upon me taking over, we submitted uh, you know, um we submitted the permit and application or the application for the permit.

Um, you know, upon that, we had submitted that in late October.

In November, we had not still received any communication from that.

We received another violation in January of 26.

At that point in time, I reached back out to Stefan to uh clarify what had gone on.

Uh we had submitted the application to Ryan Green.

Ryan Green is no longer around, so it got lost in translation from there.

Um, once I submitted the application, we still had not gotten a final answer on on what was going on.

Um, it seems like the violation is in coordination with a sign that is on the corner intersection.

Um property itself operates under that parcel of land.

However, we don't control the parking garage or operate the parking garage that is putting that sign there.

Um, so it is the ownership next door that owns that property, they own the property across the street where the entrance to the parking structure is.

They're the ones that are putting the sign technically on our land.

Uh, we're being held responsible for it even though we don't have any control over that.

Um, we've submitted our sign or our application for the sidewalk sign that we have that's inside of our parking garage.

There's still been some you know miscommunication on whether we need that or not because it is you know inside of our parking structure, almost a hundred feet away from the actual sidewalk.

Um, so really just looking so uh for some clarification further on if we need that application for our sign itself, and then you know, like I said, the sign uh on the intersection, we don't have any control over that.

Gotcha.

So maybe but it's on your land.

It is on our land, that is true, uh, according to the parcel.

Uh we've had communication with the other uh property, and we've you know expressed several times that it can't be there.

Uh we were issued that fine, you know.

We need we transferred that fine to them, worked out a deal with them, things like that, but at the same time that the sign is still being put on our land.

Um, so from our perspective, from uh from a coronado 101 Coronado perspective, that's not our sign.

We don't put it there.

We understand the situation, but you know, we don't we don't put it there.

All right, just one second.

You say that they paid the fine when you went tell them, but what was their reply to keep putting it back?

I I don't speak on on behalf of them, you know.

They they continue to put it there.

No, what did I tell you?

Uh they they understood, you know, that they understand the the situation.

It's been a conversation going back between us, you know, repeatedly obviously since mid of 2025.

Um, and here we are today, and it's still there.

Sound like communication broke down.

I would say so.

Um, you know, so the opening of that building is is relatively new.

I'm a new general manager.

You know, there's communication between all of us.

It was a problem that I took over when I got here.

I've communicated with them.

The person over there is also a new general manager, so just kind of got lost in the shuffle here.

I've tried to, you know, apply for the permits for our location and our sign.

Once again, looking for clarification on if it's so far away from the sidewalk.

Do we even need that for ourselves?

But then that sign that is in contest on that corner.

We've made it very clear that we continue to not put that sign there and continue to communicate with that other property to make sure that it's not there, but obviously that's not happening.

Lost in translation.

Inspector, can you offer anything on that?

I can I can do I have a PowerPoint presentation, uh, maybe for clarification would help to uh show some pictures of that.

Yes, thank you.

Oh, sorry.

Oh that's at uh 101 Coronado Drive.

That's the address.

Um and um I have also I can show a um a picture from property appraiser just to give you an idea of the property.

Um that's a little bit.

I have it in um so it's a little bit um difficult to see.

This is the hotel Pierhouse 60, where joined by Mr.

Manager Hotel, and um that's across the street, that's Devon Drive, and across the street is the parking structure, and that parcel this is actually one parcel divided by Devon Drive.

So that's the parking structure, and the sign uh we talk about uh the sign violation occurs here at the corner over here in front, so the sign uh moves around there.

So that's basically and um the adjacent and the bottom um right away, including the property is the responsibility of the property owner.

And I I don't hold the hotel responsible, I hold solely the property owner responsible for for the violation.

Okay, Mike.

All right, so again, there's one violation regarding code section uh 3-1806A, temporary sign criteria limitations, and code uh section 3-1804 J that sidewalk signs without a permit.

So again, um one the first code section is regarding the placement of the sign.

Cannot be placed um where it's currently placed uh at the corner in the intersection, and um it also doesn't have a permit.

The notice of violation was mailed in January 12, 26.

Certified mail came back in uh January 20 uh notice of violation was mailed January 12, 26.

Certified mail received uh January 26, 26, and compliance date was January 23, 26.

So that's that's one of the signs.

It's placed here on a sidewalk.

There's a minimum of four feet clearance uh necessary.

Sidewalk, I think this is the same sign, it just moved here.

It was on January 8.

It's at the corner intersection, and that's in a visibility triangle.

It can't be placed there.

Also has no permit.

That pictures um January 8, 26, the sign is placed there next to the sidewalk.

Also doesn't have a still doesn't have a permit and it moved back on uh March 6 of this year to the corner in the visibility triangle.

All right, that that picture I took today.

Um, as you can see, um the sign is gone.

There's no sign anymore.

Um it's another angle, the same day of the parking structure, so no sign uh is being placed there.

So in other words, um compliance is met for that violation.

Compliance for the sidewalk sign can be met by removing the sign or obtain a permit.

Okay.

All right.

Recommendation.

Yeah.

For case 55-26 site book signed without a permit, requesting compliance on or before uh April 25th, 26th.

Any questions?

So you're looking for a uh declaration of violation.

I'm looking because as you can see the pictures of today, they show no violation.

Right.

Right.

So the science uh the case is resolved.

That's okay.

That's uh basically all we asking for declaration of violation.

Okay.

Sir, did you have any other questions?

I guess you know the assignment up there.

You have to be up there.

Sorry, thank you.

I guess you know, just to make our our point clear on some of those pictures.

There's now the new hotel next door to mine at 40 Devon Drive.

They operate that parking structure at 35 Devin Drive.

Um, even though it's on our parcel of land, it's their building their their ownership of that.

So we just want to make sure that that's that's known and uh you know we are in compliance as far as a one-on-one court out of drive goes.

Can I just say one more thing?

So according to property appraiser, the current owner is still decad company's income properties.

So that's that's the that's basically the property owner we hold responsible.

Whoever hounts the sign is um actually Uruban for the case.

Uh the property owner's possible to maintain the property and remove the signage if there's uh one place.

So that's our position.

I guess your task, sir, is to figure out how to get them to quit putting the sign there.

Because it's on your property.

All right.

Mr.

Chair, may I also we for maybe for the benefit of our new board member?

Um, the reason why we seek a declaration of violation is because that establishes the predicate to bring back a repeat violation case.

In a repeat violation case, normally the city has to give time for the person to correct the violation before they come to the board and seek a fine.

But if it's a repeat violation, the city can come to the board immediately and seek a fine from the date of the notice of violation.

Um, whereas on on the first instance, we come to the board, the board imposes a future deadline with a repeat uh violation, the board can backdate to that notice of violation.

So just explaining that so that we're all clear in terms of what the declaration of violation actually does uh legally.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Board have any questions?

Can I get a declaration, please?

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.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, sir.

Let's go back and pick up case uh 3.16, which is case 52-26.

Fine response baside arbors.

XIILLC at 2729 Seville Boulevard in violation of code for fences.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

Inspector Stevens.

Actually, board uh this one is gonna be a declaration of violation as well.

They brought it into compliance yesterday.

All right.

Any questions from the board?

I have a declaration, please.

I'm moving fine.

Oh, go ahead.

No, go right ahead.

I moved to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the afterday, but in this case, the violation was corrected prior to today's hearing, and anger and order that no fine being owed.

If the respondent repeats a violation, the board may order a fine of up to 500 case today, the violation continues to exist.

May I have a second?

Second.

All right.

All in favor?

Motion carries.

Thank you, John.

Thank you.

Board, we are two hours and uh 22 minutes into our meeting.

Uh so council take a break.

Does anybody else want to break or you want to five minutes?

Okay.

We're adjourned for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr.

Jackson.

Municipal code enforcement board is now back in session.

All right.

I believe uh going through we have a number up here that were continued and withdrawn, and unless I've overmissed overlooked another one.

Our next case is 3.30, case 72-26.

By respondents Wagner Larry HRE at 643 Mandalay Avenue in violation of code for sidewalk signs and issue order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Inspect Burkhardt, before afternoon board, Stephen Burkard sign inspector for seat order.

Um the cases in compliance up as of today, uh so I'm asking just for declaration of violation.

Um questions?

Maybe all right.

She wants he wants me, I'll do it.

Go ahead.

There you go, Chelsea.

Uh 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 of the violation continues to exist.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Good one, Chelsea.

All right.

If I remember correctly, Madam Secretary, we do all our affidavits and compliance as one group.

Yes.

All right.

So we will uh I will accept a motion to include affidavits four point one point one through four point one point.

Well uh fate.

Well, I'm gonna go through four point one point ten because we have another case on page five listed after that that doesn't have the oh there it is four point two.

Okay.

Can I get a motion to accept affidavits four point one point one through four point one point ten uh accepted affidavits of compliance accepted?

I move to accept the affidavit compliance as listed.

I'll second it.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

All right, down to bottom of page five, four point two case one forty-two-25.

Accept the affidavit of non-compliance for respondents sugar factory LLC at 1844 Drew Street for exterior surfaces, door and window openings, roof maintenance, and exterior storage.

Is anyone here to speak on that case?

Okay, where are we?

Well, this is an affidavit of non-compliance.

So there's no one here to speak on it.

I will accept the motion.

I move to accept the affidavit of non-compliance and issue an order that proposes fines and states if fines and fees remain on page three months after such lien is filed.

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

I'll second it.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving down the remainder of these in this area were withdrawn under other board action.

Uh five point one has been handled.

The next action we have is election of chair.

And I would like to nominate Bob Kenny to be the chairman.

Greatly accepted.

Anybody else want to nominate?

We need to nominate a uh any other nominations for chair.

No.

We don't want that top.

All right.

I guess we vote on that and then we go to vice chair.

Is that how we do that?

Yes, sir.

All right.

Um, all in favor of me being re-elected or elected as chair.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

All opposed carries.

Thank you very much.

May I have nominations for vice chair, please?

I will submit a nomination for Mr.

Engel as vice chair.

Do we have any other?

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any other nominations?

Anybody else like to be vice chair?

Apparently not.

I'm sorry?

I said first day.

I'm not going to be able to do that.

I'm not going to step in at that code line, Joseph.

All those of uh in favor of uh Mr.

Engel uh being vice chair.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Mr.

Kerry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Congratulations, Mr.

Engel.

And congratulations to you, Mr.

Kenny.

Thank you for your confidence.

You too, Mr.

Chairman.

Moving on, next item would be a nuisance abatement lien filings.

Uh number 6.3, case 89-26.

Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents.

Patrillo, Philip Benjamin, TRE, and BNG land trust at two or two Glenwood Avenue for lock clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to make it mitigate the violation if compliance is not met.

Anyone here to speak on that?

Yes, sir.

Come forward and station your name and address, please.

Philip Petrillo, P E T R I L L O Address 217 Harrison Avenue, Clearwater Beach, or well, Belair Beach.

Thank you, sir.

And this is a nuisance of maintenance lien.

So we're not doing uh our typical motions of violation.

We're simply considering a new sense abatement lien.

Is that correct?

Yes.

I would just have the inspector go through the presentation.

Yeah, let's have Mr.

Mr.

Casman uh give us some information and we'll ask you to uh come back up.

All right.

No, it's not on this is okay.

Sorry about that.

All right.

North Glenwood Avenue is for this statement.

Case number 89-26.

One violation here for code section 3-1503 V5A V8 for lot clearing.

This is the date of notice of violation was found with client state and date for the posting was done the same day as the notice of violation.

Uh this is 202 North Glenwood Avenue for for all intents and purposes.

The main yard is well kept, but really what I'm uh concerned with is it's adjacent to Drew Street and the sidewalk on that side, and then a little bit of the sidewalk along Glenwood needs some work.

This was the day of the posting on the 24th.

Uh, this is a little bit of the sidewalk on the Glenwood side that just needs some clearing back and forth so people aren't tripping over the plants or tripping over the leaves.

It's a little bit obscured with some overgrowth and debris.

But the really major concern is over here on Drew Street.

Uh some of this grass here, this moody grass, Fakahaji grass was cut back.

I think that's what they thought was the main area of concern, but really as we look at other pictures, it's the sidewalk has been almost half taken over by just debris and greenery growing from the adjoining property.

If you see here, really that sidewalk should be over about a half a foot.

We're we're losing sidewalk there, and it's a danger for pedestrians, bicyclists.

There's a lot of leaves, debris on that sidewalk as well.

They're slippery, and I just like that cleared and removed.

Uh this was after the compliance date on the ninth.

Uh the same situation on the Glenwood side, and this is a better look of that area on the other side.

As you can see, the sidewalk is being slowly consumed by the leaves and debris and the greenery coming off of the side again.

We just all need to be chopped back, bagged up, removed, so we have clear sidewalk.

This is uh going looking uh east or what eastbound on uh Jerry Street again one by the day.

This little section has still not been maintained, and again, same story on this side.

You just really need all that bagged up, remove, cut back.

You'd probably be good for another month or so before you have to be over each clearance.

So appliance we have for lock clearing by cutting back the greenery and removing all debris from the adjacent sidewalk so they're completely unimpeded and requesting clients on before five days from the date board renders in order.

Thank you.

All right, uh council.

Would we be out of order to hear from the proper gentleman?

I have no objection.

Okay, sir, I'd just like to hear what he has to say.

I know this is not your typical declaration violation.

The gentleman's here, so I'd like to give him the opportunity to speak with us.

Uh we're totally in the dark on this one.

Didn't didn't realize there was an issue with the sidewalk at all, and be taken care of immediately.

Great, thank you very much.

Okay, short and sweet, I love it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

So here's the question.

If you pass what they're asking for, then you're not giving him time to clean it.

Just a month, sir.

Yeah.

If you're asking if you're gonna give them some additional time, that's I mean, so I don't know how the city's position is.

Well, um that's awfully hard to read.

Do you need more time than five days?

Well, hang on a second.

Let's I'm sorry, point your toes.

I understand we're we're in a different area here in terms of the declaration of violation.

And I need before I ask that question if you don't mind.

I'd like to see what the inspector has there.

It was this typical requesting compliance art before five days from the date board you guys run your order.

Typically, that takes about two weeks.

So really an all real serious, all realistic time frame.

He's still got about two weeks, 14 days to clean up, and if he does it before that time frame, I have no need to exercise that board order in any way, shape, or form.

Yeah.

Okay.

Sorry, I didn't want to step on you.

I just didn't understand initially.

It took me two months to get the guy.

You know, they're pretty backed up.

Yeah.

So can I have a month, 30 days?

Um, Sarah Green Co-compliance manager.

What we would really request is to keep our normal maintenance and if he stays in contact with us and the inspector, we're happy to work with them.

We don't have to exercise our right to a bait immediately following obtaining the bait order.

All right.

So we'll go with a standard motion, but you stay in touch with Mr.

Cassmanner.

I think it's sort of all right.

Right.

All right.

Thank you.

I'll let you know what it's all right.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Um I have a uh motion.

As in so it's your normal motion.

Yeah, it's a big yeah.

I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days and stay in touch with Mr.

Kasman 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 obey and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with a reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property.

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

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

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Motion carries.

All right.

Number 6.4, case 90-26.

Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents.

Von I here.

Okay.

Let's uh speak.

Von Burn, Don Marson Rutherpool Trust, Don Marson Von Burns TRE at 1535 Gulf to Bay Boulevard for an operative vehicle and issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation of compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this?

Yep, sir.

Please come forward and state your name and address and relation to the property.

Good day, sir.

Good afternoon.

Sirs.

My name is Vico Lawson.

I reside at 974 Park Street, Clearwater.

And this is Mr.

Don Morrison von Burns, who resides at Three Reserve Boulevard in Clearwater.

And this is regarding 1535 Gulf to Bay Boulevard.

Are you representing yes?

Correct.

I'm representing Mr.

Von Birds.

Okay.

Okay.

How about if we uh hear from the inspector and look at this, and then we'll give you an opportunity to give us an idea of what's going on.

Okay.

Thanks.

Inspector.

Take the Sutter for the City of Clearwater.

Code Inspector.

This is case 902-26 for 1535 Gulf to Bay Bullet.

There is one violation here.

Code Section 3-1503B6 for inoperable vehicles.

There are several of them on the property.

Notice the violation was posted and mailed on March 10th of 2026 with a compliance date of March 20th, 26.

The certified mail was not received.

This is a picture of the posting on March 10th.

Um for the one for the hearing and one for the um inoperable vehicles.

Um when I went out there this morning, what you will see the picture.

Um this one did have an expire tag on it of 1125, but it this vehicle does now have a current tag, but it has flat tires.

Um this picture was also on this one was on February 7th.

Expire tag, a trailer on the property, expire tag.

This is this semi-trailer that has the broken legs on it that's being held up by a stack of pallets.

This is a food truck on the property that has an expire tag.

This is again this morning.

Expire tag.

Compliance can be met for the unoperable vehicles by removing all vehicles from the property or make repairs so that vehicles are roadworthy as well as display a current license plate that is assigned to each of the vehicles.

Requesting compliance within five days after the board runners is ordered.

Thank you, ma'am.

Sir, would you what would you like to share with us about this?

So we're happy to report that all the registrations are paid for current.

The decals are attached to the registrations on all vehicles, the tires are inflated in all vehicles.

Um the only item that where we what while the semi-trailer is still operable, we recognize the need to repair the supporting structure.

And so uh we believe that a if we could be provided a month to complete that, that would be helpful.

Okay.

So you purchased the registrations and have you put the stickers on all the vehicles?

Correct.

All right.

So what about the one with the flat tires?

Uh the tires are now inflated.

Okay.

Um with those conditions, inspector, does that does that if that is can once that's verified, does that uh bring everything except the uh the large trailer into compliance?

If if everything has current tags on it and current tax and errands tires, then yes, that would be, but the violations still exist because of the semi-trailer operable.

Got you.

So if we if we uh issue a compliance, then and those have already in compliance.

If we issue the order and these things are in compliance, uh the the vehicles that were mentioned outside of the trailer, if those are in compliance, then that goes away, but we still have the issues with the trailer.

It's one violation, and it includes all of those items.

So even if they brought four of them in compliance and one of them was not, it's it's a violation.

There's there's no separation of that.

Understood.

I'm just I'm trying to think with this in terms of bringing everything into compliance in terms of what's purportedly done and what remains to be done.

Uh, there this morning it was all in violation, so I don't know, but this morning none of that was in compliance.

So, like a last minute, let's let's get it done and get out of trouble thing, which is right.

Um so the um if those if those are the facts, then the remaining question is uh the city's asking for five days, and the uh owner of the property is asking for 30 days regarding the trailer.

Do we have any questions or comments or anything anybody would care to offer about this?

I just have a question.

Do you have a copy of the receipts for the tags and stuff?

I believe Mr.

Von Burns has a screenshot that he presented to me.

Now I do have pictures of the uh decals attached to all of the tags on my phone that Mr.

Von Burns provided, and I'm happy to email them over or present them to you on my phone.

And also the tie inflated tires, all of that is documented.

I have it, isn't it?

Okay, okay.

All right.

Comments, questions?

What's the plan for the uh trailer?

Yeah, on uh so Mr.

Von Burns just responded to fix it.

Um I'm not sure how specific you would like um to get.

Um I'm not sure what the plan is just repair it.

How much time does he need?

Excuse me.

How much time would he need to get it repairs?

30 days.

Should we just kick this down 30 days?

You know, if it's not in compliance, and inspector, do you have a anything to offer any disagreement with giving them 30 days so they get the trailer taken care of as well?

I mean, ultimately it's not up to me.

This case we had already brought this and it was supposed to have been fixed.

Right.

And then we gave them two months and now here we are again.

Um give you the opportunity to share your viewpoint with the chair.

Yes, sir.

If I may did this case was brought before it if the board recalls and the city had a different uh theory of the violation with with regard to the trailer being used for storage.

Right.

Um that was contested at the time, and we um decided to withdraw the the theory based on uh storage and focus more on the nuisance aspects of of the inoperable vehicles, the the nuisance side of it instead of the zoning uh storage side.

So um if if the trailer is repaired, obviously that would cure the nuisance aspects that we would um that we've presented now, uh, whether or not that has some other issue in terms of long-term storage and parking there, those would be something that those would be separate issues that the city would have to um address separately through a new case and new conversations with the with the property owner.

But for for now, we we withdrew all that and we focused entirely on the inoperable uh vehicle aspects of this of this situation, and we don't have any objection to 30 days.

Anybody else have an objection to 30 days?

My only question on that was we offered 30 days and everything got done this morning or after this morning.

So there were 29 days that nothing was done.

So maybe we should just say two weeks.

If I may, it was uh 10 days, I believe.

That is from the date of the notice.

Um I can I can verify that now.

Oh, you received in the mail?

It was received on March 10.

It was to be corrected by March.

By March 20th, it is March 25th today, so it's been 15 days.

Okay.

That was when we had ruled on it, that's what I was thinking.

Well, it's up to everybody then.

I don't mind 30.

All right.

All right, can I have a motion, please?

I move phase seven, right?

Just uh I moved the entertainment order, finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondents to correct the violations within 30 days of the board's written order.

If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all regional actions enclosing entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable cost, which will be a lien on the property.

If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed.

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed motion carries.

Thank you.

If there's nothing else, thank you.

We are adjourned.

We are here you go to the