Municipal code enforcement board is called the order.

We're good.

We're good.

You can go now.

Okay.

Just looking at our videographer back there.

Just making some kind of motions.

I wanted to make sure we're good to go.

Please rise for the pledge of allegiance.

Excuse me.

I collect the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it is under God.

Please proceed.

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

Please remember to turn off your cell phones.

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

We serve voluntarily.

First the violation and then affirmative relief.

Formal rules of evidence do not apply.

Each side is limited to 15 minutes.

The board may grant additional time.

All proceedings will be conducted in a call and civil manner.

Individuals who conduct themselves otherwise will be asked to leave.

If necessary, they will be escorted from the chambers.

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

Do you swear a promise tell the truth throughout your entire customer?

Thank you.

Motion to approve.

Maybe second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Next on the agenda are new business items.

Under our new business items, 3.1 has been withdrawn.

3.2 has been withdrawn.

3.3 has been withdrawn.

3.4 continued for March.

It's going to continue to May 27th.

3.5 continued for March 25th.

It's going to be continued to May 27th.

3.6 is going to be continued to May 27th.

Our first case step to listen to is 3.7 case 74-26.

Find respondents one of Ellen at 2104 Brigadoon Drive in violation of code for clean roof and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Compliance can be met for roof maintenance by maintaining the roof in a clean, mildew-free condition and kept free of trash, loose shingles, debris, and other elements, including grass, weeds, and tarps, as well as any anything that is not a permanent part of the building or a functional element of its mechanical or electrical system.

So recommendations for the roof maintenance requesting compliance on or before June 1st, 2026, or a bottle of $150 per day per violation if compliance is not met.

Thank you.

Have you spoken with the owner?

Oh sorry.

Have you attempted to speak to the response?

All right.

Any other questions from the board?

No.

May I have a first motion?

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

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

I have a second motion, please.

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

What was the date there, please?

June 1st.

June 1st, thank you.

Respondent to correct the violations on or before June 1st.

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

Each violation continues to exist.

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

May have a second.

Sorry?

Second.

All right.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Very good.

Thank you.

Our next case 3.8 has been withdrawn.

Case 3.9.

Case 76-26.

Fine respondents, Belize Enterprises Incorporated at 1004 South Martin Luther King Jr.

Avenue.

In violation of code for permits, an issue of order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

I'm Inspector Kat Reese, Inspector of the City of Clear Order.

This is going to be for 1004, Martin Luther King Jr.

South Avenue.

This is for case 76-26.

And it's going to be for um one violation for permits required.

This violation is specifically for the permit for the building for the rafters framing roof interior remodel to include electric plumbing, drywall, subport, and removal of window.

There were multiple notice of violations that have gone out.

The initial one was sent May of 2024, and the last one sent October of 2025.

Affidavit of posting was posted on 6.3 of 24.

This is going to be on South Martin Luther King, just south of Druid Road.

And this was the inspection pictures from the previous inspector who started the case of the work that was being done there.

On a later date, uh PCCLB was um contacted the inspector to advise that they were doing work in the interior.

So it was a little bit after the initial inspection that they went back out and um saw that more work was being done.

So this is still on the outside, and this is in the inside.

So to elaborate on that, um he wants to do a lot with the property, and um he keeps hiring contractors to move forward, but then pulls.

Uh you know, after all.

Um, this is all the contact I've had with a lot of contractors or engineers, either one, and again from another contractor where he's going a different direction, and that's basically what each conversation has been.

The plan, they advise me what it is, and then they say we're we're pulling or he's going another route.

So at this point, um, the last time I spoke with an architect, he have assured me there would be a permit in that he's now gone with someone new who has pulled this permit.

So compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections.

Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before May 22nd of 2026, and the completion of the permit six months from issuance of said permit.

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

Any questions?

It's been going on how long, about two years now?

Two years, yes.

Is that typical?

Is it we just been really um there's been a lot, you know, COVID.

Well, COVID was well past at this point, but I mean there were there was a break of inspectors in the department, so I if I it would only be a speculation of mine that as to why it sat, but I did take it on immediately from getting you know, coming on board, and I have been in contact with the property owner, but he just I and he understands like yeah, I told him it's we got to get something set and completed at this point.

Um, and I've worked with him as much as I possibly can.

He starts to get a permit and then pulls out or does it right.

So the last like if I go back, let me go back here real quick.

So the initial permit that was pulled in 2024 was voided out by the contractor, and then again by another contractor.

These are void letters, and they have to send those so that way that takes a liability off the contractor as to why this was not completed.

Is there a stop work order on this property?

That it was this was all based on a stop work order for the work being done without a permit.

But then you keep finding more work is being done even though there's a stock work order on it.

Um he has stopped now because I know he has understood that the building needs a whole lot more work than what he thought after speaking to professionals.

Um I don't know if it's a money thing.

I I he's I I don't really want to speak for him.

Yeah, you know, but um what we have high hopes here he's got a permit in.

Let's just I but he's technically in violation until there's an active permit and it is completed.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

What's the compliance date you're seeking?

I'm sorry?

What's the compliance date you're seeking?

It's gonna be six months from the date of issuance.

So I'm giving him I'm requesting from May for May 22nd to have an issue permit and six months for completion.

I have a question based based on what you you've seen.

Um you think that uh permit issuance.

This may be a question for the building department if they're familiar with it, if that compliance date is realistic in terms of what they've submitted.

I'm not I know this has been a long case, and I'm not advocating necessarily giving them more time.

I'm just thinking in terms of where they are in the process and that they're gonna actually can actually get a permit issued by them.

Getting a permit issued, um, they just submitted the plans the other day.

So it you know it they waited till the last minute to submit those plans.

I I could I really couldn't speak on it without reviewing those or having everyone review that.

Um but it it is on my discretion that even once the permit is active.

If you know they're having issues getting the permit completed, they at least have the active permit.

If I'm seeing that they're having inspections, they're passing or they're working to pass, then because that's really ultimately what we want is to make sure everything's up to code.

That's the whole point of the permit.

Okay, and you're asking for compliance date of to issue the permit May 22nd.

I have not heard from the new contractor to really give much more time than that.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

I have a first motion, please.

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

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

I have a second motion, please.

I move to enter in an order requiring the respondents to correct the violations on it before May 22nd, 2026.

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

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

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

May have a second.

Thank you.

Yes.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

The motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector.

Next case is one zero on our agenda.

Case 77-26, fine respondents, Melise Enterprises incorporated at 1004 South Martin Luther King Avenue in violation of code for permits.

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

Is this not the same address?

It is the same address, so this will be a bit quicker because it's gonna be basically the same talk.

Well, I believe, thank you.

Yes.

I believe I've already asked if there was anyone here to speak on this case, and though we had a late arrival, I just want to make sure we didn't miss somebody.

Okay.

Inspector, you have the floor.

Okay, Inspector Cat Reese.

This is gonna be for case 77-26 at 1004 South Martin Luther King Junior Avenue.

It's gonna be also for permits required.

This is specifically to repaving and striping of the parking lot.

This was also on the about the same date.

It was um June of 2024, the final notice being sent March 5th of 2026, and I did have to post for this specific violation to the property.

Um there's the location of the property again, and that's for the posting.

And this is what the um the property looked like uh March of 2023, and as far as the pavement goes, and this is in 2025 and what it looks, you know, February 2025 on Google.

Uh, this was the inspector's photos of the initial inspection where it was repaved and restriped.

And I do this permit that was pulled will it also I did quickly look to see if it did include this and it and it did.

So hopefully, if they get everything submitted, um they can come and compliance for this as well.

All right, so compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections.

Requested compliance by obtaining a permit on or before May 22nd, 2026, and completion of permit six months from the issuance of said permit if the violation continues to exist and post the fine of 150 per day each day the violation continues to exist.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Any other questions?

May I have 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?

All opposed.

Motion carries.

May have a second motion, please.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation on or before May 22nd, 2026.

In the if the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of excuse me.

Did you did you say April or May?

May.

Yeah.

Board may order a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation for each day, each violation continues to exist if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed.

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

Second.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Next case 3.11.

78-26.

Find respondents.

AA Torres Pavon at 1450 Franklin Street in violation of code for permits and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

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

This is going to be for 1450 Franklin Street, case number 78-26.

It's one uh violation here for permits required, specifically permit required for the asphalt surfacing completed on the property.

First notice, oh, I apologize for that.

That should say 2022.

I totally forgot to fix that.

Um the first notice went out January 22nd of 2022.

With my final notice being sent November 21st of 2025.

Certified mail was signed on my notice from November 10th of 2025.

This is going to be uh just northeast of Gulf to Bay, right off of Franklin Street.

So this is uh a complex um residential apartments, and this is what the property uh looked like on Google February of 2021, and this is it in February of 2025.

This was also the initial uh pictures of the initial inspector.

She did have um communication with him per the notes May of 2022, and they advised that they were gonna work on getting a survey to get come in compliance.

Um then when I took over the case, I did speak with somebody in December of 2025.

Um our conversation was a lot different.

Um he doesn't agree that something so minuscule needs to be in compliance, and I've not heard from him again.

So compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections.

Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before May 22nd, 2026, and completion of the permit six months from the issuance of the permit.

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

I understand from what you're telling us that work was done without a permit, and at some point with a previous instructor.

Was that Nilda?

Yes, it was.

How is Noble?

Oh, I think she's doing pretty good.

I hear from other people that you know that have spoken with her, she's enjoying retirement.

I would imagine.

Good for her.

She are um and then at some point um you picked up the case, and even though they indicated to her they would take care of it now, they're getting a different uh kind of a different uh idea from them.

That yes, okay, yeah.

All right, maybe you've spoken with them recently.

No, not since December.

Um, I would imagine he has realized it's a bit more complicated than just getting the permit because it is issues with the right-of-way.

Um you have to it has to go through multiple departments.

Um, and a lot of people don't understand that, but there's importance to each one, each one of those departments approval.

Sure.

All right.

Any questions from the board?

All right.

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

Second.

Second.

All right.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

May I have a second motion, please.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before May 22nd, 2026.

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

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

Second.

All in favor?

All opposed.

Motion carries.

I'm sorry.

Um the next item 3.12 is the same address.

It's a different case, but same address is 3.21.

If we could hear those back to back.

All right, so we'll do 3.12 first and then 3.211.

To not confuse you.

All right.

Thank you.

I don't know how they got separated out.

So we'll hear them sequentially.

Yes, correct.

All right.

Thank you.

All right, our next case 79-26 by respondents, and please forgive me if I butcher somebody's name here.

Alexander Gabrichik and Shizhana Gabrich, yeah.

1623 Windsor in violation of code for permits and issued an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

No.

All right.

Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Okay, I'm inspector Patrice with the city of Claywater.

This is gonna be for 1623 Windsor Place, case 79-26.

It's gonna be for permits required is the violation, uh, specifically permit required for the screen patios that were installed from the property.

First notice of violation was sent October 2023, and the final was sent March 5th of 2026.

I posted to the property on March 6th of 2026, and this is going to be uh just north of souvenir drive, um, pretty far south of Union.

So here's a Google photo of the property February of 2019, where you can see in this red box, it's just a balcony on the second level, and it's open at the bottom.

And this is the Google photo August of 2022.

So I have had communication with this tenants.

I said I need some progress.

Show me a survey and we can go to the next step.

But there has been no progress towards coming to compliance.

And I advise him he could come here and ask the board for what realistic time he thinks he needs, but I I'm surprised he's not here.

Um compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections.

Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on and before May 22nd, 2026, and completion of the permit six months from issuance of said permit.

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

Thank you.

No, but he has since advised the owner.

Um he's not in this state.

Um he has my my number as well.

I've not heard back from any of them.

And the owner was sent notice.

I'm sorry, the owner was sent notice.

The notice has to legally go to the what is listed in property appraiser, so yes, and it has been posted to the property.

Okay.

Any other questions?

No.

May I have a first motion, please?

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

I'll say all in favor.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

May I have a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before May 22nd, 2026.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may offer a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation for each day, each violation continue 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.21, case 88-26.

From respondents Alexander Gabrichik and Snooz Hunter Gabrich at 1623 Windsor Place.

In violation of code for permits and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine compliance is not met.

This is going to be for one violation permits required specifically for the above ground pool installed in the property.

First notice of violation was sent May of 2023, and the final was sent August 11th of 2025.

Certified mail was signed, even though it was some time ago.

I have been in contact with them, so I didn't post to the property since we didn't have mail signed by them in 2024.

This is also for the same property.

And this is an aerial view of the property, and this is from 2021 of May.

And here, this is the property right here.

And this is the pool that's installed that also doesn't look very good on the aerial shot from February of 2023.

Couldn't I'm sorry to interrupt you?

Can we go back and look at that?

I want to see trying to see where that pool is, and then you probably can't zoom in on that.

Right, no, I cannot zoom, but it's this green area.

Yes.

That's a large above-ground pool.

It is, it is a very large one.

This in the Google photo, I believe they caught them like it caught caught a snapshot of them installing it.

Okay, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

And again, the communication has been the same as the uh previous violation.

Um he's been afforded multiple extensions to you know for his financial burdens with no real progress.

So compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections.

Um requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before May 22nd, 2026, and completion of permit six months from issuance of said permit if the violation continues to exist and post a fine of 150 dollars per day each day the violation continues to exist.

Thank you.

No.

I just you see you haven't been actually in communication with the owner.

You've made calls and left voicemails, but you've never actually talked to them.

To the tenant, I have, and you know, but I explained he wouldn't have to let his landlord know.

And the legal notice has been given, and if he is choosing to leave his landlord out, that would be a civil matter between the two of them because we legally have to send to what is listed in property praiser.

Okay.

And but I have attempted, aside from that, to have contacts with the landlord, and um, I have not received a call back.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a first motion, please?

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

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

We have a second motion, please.

Inspector Reese, we're going with uh May 22nd again.

Yes, sir.

I moved in or order requiring the respondent to correct the violation is on or before May 22nd, 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 or settle such lane.

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector.

So we will go back up to agenda item 3.13, which is continued to May 27th.

3.14 has been withdrawn.

3.15 is continued to June 24th, 2026.

Next item for hearing would be case our item agenda item 3.16, which is case 83-26.

Find respondents D UN Investments Corp.

at 435 Mandalay Avenue in violation of code for permits and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Inspector Cat Reese with the City of Clifforder, this is going to be for 435 Mandalay Avenue case 83-26.

This is for one violation, permits required, specifically for permits of four wall signs on the property.

First notice of violation was sent June 4th of 2025, and the final was sent on March of 2026.

Posted to the property March 5th of 2026.

And this is right off of Mandalay Avenue just south of Papaya.

I have been in contact with the property owner or the restaurant owner.

This sign we had discussed, he said he would take down and not permit.

Um, but the other three would need to get permitted.

So this I know it's very difficult, it's like inside there, but it is easy for him to take that one down and come in compliance.

But um he still would need one to keep for this sign on the side, which is for his deliveries, as well as in the front of the business.

And um I have gone over, I believe I'm missing one other sign in my photo.

I apologize for that.

Um but he is in the he understands what what signs need to get permitted.

I've worked with him for a long time.

Um I don't know what happened.

He said he is gonna get fast signs to pull the permit prior to today.

Um, and I haven't heard from him, and there is no permit in the system as of today.

So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit with final inspections.

Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before May 22nd, 2026, and completion of the permit six months from issuance of said permit.

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

Thank you.

Or do we have any questions?

So this is only affecting the two house side signs.

It's there there are a total of four.

He could bring it down to three that need to get permitted, but if he takes that one down, but if you want to keep it, it would have to get permitted as well.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

When did you last week with the the owner?

Um he came into the office and I sat down with him and uh someone from zoning as well permitting um just last week, um or two weeks ago, and then he called me last week to let me know if that signs was gonna get the permit in.

Um, and I haven't seen anything yet.

I was rooting for him.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

And when would he have received his notice?

Oh, yes, it was posted to the property.

Oh, when um June 5th of 2026.

June 5th of 2020.

Sorry, let me let me go back to that.

I'm going off the top.

March 5th of 2026.

I posted to the property.

But he got uh notices of violation uh in June of 2025 and September of 2025.

Right.

So this would be the first notice of violation and the first compliance date, and then the second.

So you it it we get three violations before ever bringing it here, plus all the extensions that were given.

So the first one was like 10 months ago.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, may I have a first motion, please?

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

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

May I have a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before May 22nd, 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, cities authorized to foreclose collect or sell such lien.

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed motion carries.

Item agenda item 3.1.

Uh 3.17 is continued to July.

Our next case uh item agenda item 3.18, case 85-26.

Fine respondents paresh, peric shock, and rooty peric at 440 South Gulfview Boulevard in violation of code for permits, and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Okay.

This is gonna be for one violation for permits required, specifically for completed permit required for the interior remodel.

So it'd been multiple notices of violation sent uh in total of four with several compliance dates.

The initial compliance uh notice of violation was sent October of 2020, the final being sent November of 2025 posted to the property.

That was the stop work order, the date of on October 19th of 2020.

That is the picture of the posting of the stop work order.

This is going to be on South Gulf View, and just to give you uh this is the two tower building at 440.

The inspector um the initial inspector was able to go into the property um where the work was evident, as you can see, it does include electric.

Does it so I know some of these pictures are a bit blurry, but I tried to keep them all in there?

Picture the drywall.

So the permit was pulled to come in compliance back in 2020.

Um that permit has since expired.

Okay, um, I have attempted to contact them.

I've never had, I've never spoken to this anybody at this property.

Um they have passed some inspections, but they also have failed some.

So and it does not include the electric.

So even if they pass all this, they're still not in compliance until the entire scope is met through the stop work order.

So compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections, requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before May 22nd, 2026, and completion of permit six months from issuance of said permit.

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

Thank you.

Board, do you have any questions?

I do.

Yes.

Is this the lobby of the this is unit number 308?

Oh, it's a unit.

Okay, good.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Any other questions from the has the unit been sold since no, still the same owners.

Same honor.

Okay.

If if you haven't spoken with the owner, how did you get in to take pictures of the inside the initial the I was not the I wasn't here in 2020, so I took this case over from the previous inspector.

Oh, I say when on property as well as well as air quality because it's a condo, asbestos, all that it was done.

You know, they did their their inspection.

So the violation is there.

So it's been there.

So it could be completely remodeled.

Oh, it definitely I'm certain it is at this point, especially with the permits that they've had.

The work has been it's already done, but that we need right we need to have past inspections on all the entire scope of work.

Absolutely, yeah.

So the initial was in 2020.

Yes.

And then there's quite a time period from then up to what 2025 when it was picked back up again.

Um I would assume there was either it it got dropped or there was COVID or there was work being done on that was permitted and then they stopped or some such thing.

Can you enlighten us on any of that?

Um based off of the notes, and Nilda was pretty good.

This was her.

Um she was in contact with a lot of contractors for them to come in compliance, which they did in 2020.

Um, and then she uh she closed out the case because the permit was issued, and that's over time they've learned that's probably not the best idea because then we don't know if the you know the uh inspections were done.

So it goes in a different status today.

It goes in a permit issued status, and then a re-inspection would be set for the six months from the issuance of the permit.

Am I correct in thinking the code compliance doesn't close them out now until the final inspection, and then you close your case?

Yes.

I want uh how I work that a lot of people would tell me, hey, I pass this and I'll close it out that day, but if even if they don't tell me I set a re-inspection in a cella so that way it aligns with the permit, so that way I'm not confused going forward.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

I'm gonna make a motion for uh address 440 South Gulf View Boulevard Unit 308.

Is that correct?

Yes.

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

Second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

I have a second motion, please.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondents to correct the violations on it before May 22nd, 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, or settle such lane.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

The motion carries.

Um, just as a side note for uh looking at the administrative side of things.

I I would assume, Madam Secretary, when this order is issued that it will have that number 308 on it.

So it's not shown on our agenda item, and I just want to cross my keys and dot my eyes before I sign something.

All right, excellent.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate that.

Our next case uh is agenda item 3.19, case 86-26.

Fine respondents bond and Ryan San Hamill at 640 Bay Way Boulevard Unit 304 in violation of code for permits and issue an order for the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Inspector, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, board.

Read ETO for the inspector with the city of Clearwater.

This is for a case 86-26.

Property is located at 640 Bay Wade Boulevard, unit 304.

There's one violation or permits required.

Section 4-203.a dot one specifically for permit required for interior remodel, including electrical and plumbing.

I took this case over from a previous inspector, so the initial notice of violation was sent on May 6 of 2022.

And I sent out the notice of violations on July 21st, August 15th, September 30th of 2025.

The compliance dates was on May 24th, September 5th, and October 20th of 2025.

And a certified mail was signed on a dates below.

Here is the map of where the condo is located on Bayway Boulevard.

This is uh Bay Shores.

This is a picture of the exterior of the building of Bay Shores.

Here's picks of the remodel that was done on May 10th of 2022, where the previous inspector took these pictures.

So when I sent out the notice of violations initially last year, the previous owner did uh reach out to me.

Um but since then I didn't hear anything from them till March of this year.

So I the previous owner and the current owner did reach out to me once they got the notice to appear.

And this is what it looks like after the remodel.

Wow.

And compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and the permit six months from issuance.

Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 24th, 2026, and completion of permit six months from issuance of said permit.

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

Thank you.

I do.

Why so long for the permit?

Just out of curiosity.

I'm not sure.

Um, I'm not like I understand your question.

Why you're giving them two months?

Yeah, why are you giving him two months?

Because they are working on it on they came to the in contact with the permit tech.

Okay, but we have nothing submitted so far, but they've been in contact with us.

Okay, thank you.

And when you say they was that current owner, the owner and the previous owner.

Okay.

So the previous owner is helping out the current owner to get everything permitted.

Okay.

And this is um, this is multi-family, correct?

This is uh notice of condo condo, yeah.

Okay.

Is it a 55 plus or is it just a regular so it's uh go ahead?

Go ahead.

It sounds like the previous owner did the remodel.

That's okay.

So she's helping out the current owner to everything, everything done.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, and you you say they've met with the building department.

They were just making telephone calls and emails with it with us.

So they had a permit at some point for some of the work.

Yeah, but everything had it for all of it.

Yeah, there's nothing approved.

And nothing, so nothing got passed or anything like that.

Well, they just kept going and okay.

So they're gonna have to open walls and everything.

Say that again.

Are they gonna have to open walls and probably?

Um there are a number of ways to do that.

Um, if they get an engineer to sign off on it, but basically everything's got to meet code, and they have to proof that up.

They might not speaking out of term.

Yeah, they'll have to get into compliance.

All right.

Any other questions?

Yeah.

All right.

May I have a first motion, please.

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

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

I have a second motion, please.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before June 24th, 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 or fees, I'm sorry, I'll give you that again.

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

Second.

Thank you.

All in favor?

All opposed.

The motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector Eagle.

Our next case on our agenda is 3.20.

It's case 87-26.

Fine respondents.

Gratis Philius Enterprises LLC at 1700 Gulf de Bay Boulevard in violation of code for unsafe building.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Yes.

Okay.

Matt Black Share was a bone.

Please step up the mic if you will.

And give us your name and address and your involvement in the property.

Matt Blackshare with Shots and Bowen here on behalf of the fee owner of the property, Gratis Philius Enterprises.

Gratis Philius is the fee owner of the property.

That's the owner of the land.

The owner of the land ground lease the property to a tenant 727, uh wake up 727 who's gonna build a caribou coffee on the site.

Gotcha.

And I don't want to interrupt you unnecessarily.

What we'd like to do is get your information on the record and and then uh find out the other gentleman here and and what his involvement is.

Yes, sir.

And then ask a question.

I'm James Wardell.

I'm here on behalf of Wake Up 727, which is the tenant.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry, your last name again?

Wardell, W-A-R-D-E-L-L.

Thank you.

Okay, so you're both here.

You're here representing the owner of the land property.

And you're here and representing the tenant for property.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

So our typical uh process here is that um we'd like to ask you if you admit or deny the violation so that we can get that on record and then we'll go from there.

So do you admit or deny the violation?

I deny the violation as it stands today.

Okay.

Very good.

Do you have anything to add to that?

Um I think the process is going forward, and it was a violation, but it was because of reasons beyond both of our control.

We're working with the city to fix it all.

So gotcha.

So I'll ask you, gentlemen, to have a seat.

We'll hear from the uh code compliance officer, and then we'll uh bring it back up and uh see what you have to say.

Inspector board, Inspector Larson, City of Clearwater.

This is regarding 1700 Gulf Tobay Boulevard.

It's a caribou coffee location.

Uh case number 87-26.

Uh, we have one violation, property maintenance requirements, a minimum build a excuse me, minimum building fire code requirements.

All buildings shall be maintained in accordance with the Florida Building Code, the Florida Fire Prevention Code and the International Property Maintenance Code.

Section 3-1503 nuisances.

The exact existence of any of the following specific conditions or conduct is hereby declared to constitute public nuisance.

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.

This is where we're at here, provided that any unfinished building or structure which has been under construction six months or more shall be deemed and presumed to have been left for an unreasonably long period of time in the sense of this subsection.

Notice of violation here was January 30th, 2026.

Compliance date 27 days after receipt of the notice.

Certified mail was returned signed on February 23rd, 2026.

Here's the uh the location.

You can see uh it's west of Keene Road, north of 60, right on Gulf to Pay there on the corner.

Um here's uh on the 30th, when uh when we notify five demo the unsafe at this point, it was an abandoned construction site.

You can see debris, the silk fence is falling down, it's been sitting there a while.

Um piles of dirt, site more site again.

This is all on the 30th of January.

Here's an open trench.

Okay, now here we are on March 30th.

Up close picture.

Um there has been some site work at this point.

Um to why or how again site work now?

This is April 14th.

There's a difference in the appearance of the structure at this point.

It's um looks like it's being demoed.

There's people working on it.

Same thing, windows, debris.

You can see the structure is open in the background there, pipes exposed, same thing again.

Same thing.

Again, this is now this is the 21st.

Um, excuse me.

Starting here is the 21st, which is yesterday.

So this is what it looks like right now, basically.

All right.

This was an abandoned construction site with permits that had expired uh last year in July 22nd, 2025.

That was for the build of the structure.

Uh 821-25 site work, both expired permits.

There is an active permit now, uh, dated 210-26 for the new build repairs and site work, a plans amendment 417, so five days ago, uh for additional repairs.

It looks like uh they got into it and it was more than they expected, uh, had to be fixed.

Umer states that the contractor has been changed, so that's where we're at.

Basically, for compliance to be met to comply, construction needs to be completed to meet minimum code requirements with certificate of occupancy.

If not completed, the remaining structure needs to be demolished.

Recommendation in this case, if the violation continues to exist by October 22nd, that's six months.

Impose a fine of $250 per day.

The construction is not completed, and a certificate of occupancy is not obtained by this date.

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

The city will correct the violations by any means necessary with all reasonable costs to be applied as leads against the property.

Standard basically what we're looking for is a timeline.

You know, you can see they now have permits.

Um, you know, they seem to be finding more work than what was there, what they what was expected, probably.

You know, um, the actually the the previous contract for the work they did, no inspections on a lot of it.

A lot of the work, it's not done to the plan set, so you see their situation.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question for you.

Um help me understand uh if they originally they got permits, work was performed, work was stopped, but now they have a new permit in place as well as an amendment they filed and a new contract.

Why help me understand why why this is before the board today if they if they granted they had this this period of time there, which I understand, but if they've got new permits and have an amendment filed to you know provide the data for whatever changes they're making, then why is why is this at before the board today?

Excellent question, sir.

The the city is just looking for some type of timeline.

Uh we want to make sure that it doesn't end up abandoned situation again.

Um want to keep it moving and have a nice building there when it's done.

Okay, gotcha.

All right.

So you basically in the business, since it sat so long, you're looking for a bit of motivation to to make sure this thing moves along.

Yes, sir.

Any other questions from the board for the inspector?

Well, you see activity there.

Do you do you think that that's new activity or that it's well there's quite a bit of new activity?

Absolutely.

So where's the three months?

What are we going for here?

It's not, it doesn't look like it's abandonment.

It's not completely.

At this point, it's not because the permits have uh typically when uh building sits for a while, when the code board comes in, things start to happen, and that's what we're looking for.

We want to just make sure that this project continues.

What motion do we do that makes sense at this point?

Can we not yet until we hear we can't do that?

I want to hear from the uh the land person at the uh I'm sorry, not I'm not here.

I hope I'm not jumping on the toes.

Uh I want to hear from the uh the owner and the tenant to kind of get their perspective of what's occurred and where they are with things to so that we can uh better evaluate.

Okay.

Any other questions for the inspector at this point?

I guess I think what he was saying is usually when we get these cases, it's three months of uh of a violation, and they've been given three violations, and they're not doing anything about it.

Well, now, yes, there was a period of time where nothing was being done, but they are doing stuff.

There is an active permit.

So I understand where you're coming from, but I think that's that's where the confusion lies is if they have it.

I understand what you're saying.

Yes, ma'am.

Yeah.

Okay, no problem.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Gentlemen.

What would you like to tell us about all of this?

I can provide some background information.

I think you've all had very rational and reasonable questions, and I think that the position of the inspector is pretty reasonable in light of what's all going on, but just to provide some background color to it.

This isn't a situation where somebody's trying to do something and abandon a project and walk away.

When this ground lease was signed, uh there was a requirement of the tenants who's going to raise the existing building on the site, and they did.

But there was a requirement that the tenant also procure a payment of performance bond from its contractor because we don't want to be in a situation where there was a half constructed building and nothing, you know, the tenant, either the tenant defaulted or the contractor defaulted or whatever, it didn't go forward.

We didn't want a bad situation, so we required the bond.

The tenant got the bond, um, and then things went sideways with the contractor's work as I understand it again.

I represent the landlord, not the tenant.

Um, but things went sideways with the landlord with the contractor, and then it took some time.

I don't know if you've had to make a claim on a construction bond, but it takes some time to go through all that process, and then of course, then it's finding a new contractor to come in and step into those shoes, which I understand has happened here.

And then I think uh everyone's probably experienced that some point if you've ever terminated a contractor and got another contractor, and there's a problem with the prior contractor's work.

So then you gotta go through and you gotta do this additional work.

And I understand that these pictures are from the stucco and the problem that with the installation of the stucco, and that led to some other problems.

There are active permits here.

There was I received emails asked recently or this morning about a modification to the description of the work in the permit just to make sure it's all picked up on to make sure the inspections are done.

Uh but this isn't the project that someone is just trying to you know abandon, walk away with, create a nuisance and anything of that nature.

Uh, what I would actually request, and I think that the proposal is fair, but what I would at request of the board is that we just uh you know continue this to a couple months from now to let the board revisit it.

The tenant is already under a fine per day, so to speak, because the tenant already has to pay to my client rent what it's doing, and it's not generating any money from this property, and so the tenant is under um every urgency right now to get this project completed and open.

So I don't think that uh you know the purpose of a fine is of course to ensure and persuade compliance.

I don't think that that's really necessary here.

Um so with some of that background information.

I'd hope the board would consider just continuing this for a couple months, and I'm confident that if it comes back or if this is canceled, that it won't even be necessary.

We're asking for six months.

So well, right, and I think that that that's fair, but I just meant to continue the whole concept that this entire hearing because as you see, the contract already started, and then it turned out they had to pull the side of the building off.

Right.

And I we just don't know what's going to come up.

But it and I understand the concern about the timeline on it, but again, please consider the this is the the situation that the tenant is in, which is that it's it's paying a substantial rent to my client, the landlord of the property every month going forward while this is sitting here.

Well, it's not generating any revenue, so it's it's already not in a favorable position, and it has you know every motivation in the world to get this done as soon as possible.

Right.

Um, regarding from what I'm I'm hearing from you, you're asking us not to oppose immediate fines, and that's generally not our operating basis.

I believe the inspector is asking, you know, for if if work is not completed in six months at that point, instituting fines if I read your request properly.

So understand that we're not in the business of assessing fines immediately today.

We're in the business of saying what's going on here, what's it gonna take to complete what's fair, etc.

etc.

And what's the inspector asking for?

My question are you involved in the construction into things?

Are you conversant with that, or should I be talking to the other gentleman?

Um he's probably more confused familiar with the actual construction aspect of it.

The reason I'm asking this is that please step up, sir.

If you would is that our inspector is asking for is is saying that he's providing a six-month completion time, and my question to either one of you gentlemen is is that a real timeline to get the project completed?

We we think that's a real time line.

In fact, we're we're hoping to be done sooner than that, as everyone said.

We've been paying rent on this, and my client was really kind of a victim of construction work, or and we fraud and we had them on two other buildings that they did in Finales County, too.

So we had to correct all of those.

So we went as fast as we could take the bond.

As soon as we resolve the bond matter, there is litigation with the reformer contractor, but that's not part of this.

We want to get this done as fast as possible.

It's been a huge expense for my client, and nobody wants to get it done sooner.

We do have the two contract contractors of the subcontractors.

We're working on the case in case you had a specific updates, but a very aggressive timeline is maybe 60 days, more realistic, because we know stuff always comes up.

We don't think we'll have any problem in six completing everything in six months.

So does the board have any questions of these gentlemen?

Is it a coffee shop that's going on?

Caribou coffee, yes.

Best coffee in the world.

Thank you.

Um any other questions of these gentlemen?

I see Mr.

Garriott's been forward.

Did you have something to offer, sir?

Yeah, hello, board.

Um Kevin Garriott, building official.

This is an unusual case.

Uh as you said, and and as you noted, we've had a permit.

But I also want to remind you that we had a permit for about two years that it sat like that.

Yeah.

So we're at no further than we were two years ago.

Um when they started building it and left it looking like this.

So the motivation that somebody mentioned here is exactly what we're looking for.

We want you to push them to get that CO, and if they don't get the CO, they can have some fines on the property and take care of it that way.

All the rent, I'm sure, has still been due all these years while it's been sitting like this.

Nothing has changed.

These gentlemen talk about you know where they are now, say place we we were two years ago.

Okay, excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you for that information.

I appreciate it.

The only thing I would add to that is that there were construction defects and what we were looking at two years ago, and that those are being resolved now.

I'd also keep in mind that the fines that are going to be assessed, if it's not uh uh brought into compliance or gotten the CO within that six months period, they go against the landlord, the landlord's fee simple interest, he's standing back with his hands in the air saying this this is my tenant doing this.

Um so I although if it sounds like they can get it done in six months, that would be great.

If the board would consider maybe a little bit extra time just for the landlord's protection, we'd certainly appreciate that.

Well, I would like to uh ask the inspector a question in that regard.

Is it your typical typical operating basis that if you see a project progressing and moving toward completion, that you're typically in in communication with uh the uh the owner and or whoever else is involved to check status before you bring it back before the board?

Absolutely, sir.

We they've been in great communication with me since I've been involved, and like you said, if if we see improvement, passing inspections, that sort of thing, you know, we don't usually um push the issue, you know.

We give them a little bit of leeway.

If you see progress, you're willing to work with them.

Is that their statement?

If we see progress, we're willing to work with them.

Does that help answer your concerns and questions?

Uh, yes, it does, as long as we're in good communication as well.

Good.

All right, any other questions from the board?

All right, I want to know what the violation is, the current violation that we're doing a motion on.

That would be a question for the co-compliance officer inspector.

Well, at this point, sir, it's still an unfinished site, so but they do have permits, so they are moving forward as far as the violation.

Um, you know, the nuisance, it's been a nuisance, and we want it to be taken care of.

Can you can you bring back up the um the the code that we're basing this on?

Is it like the top or the bottom?

Yeah, it's on the top very first uh this room.

Okay, so yeah, it's it's kind of small, isn't it?

Yeah, um so I'm looking at uh under the second section their nuisances buildings which are abandoned boarded up for uh 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, etc.

etc.

That's what you're you're basing your request on.

Yes, sir.

And the timeline on this is I believe I heard from Mr.

Garrett was it's been going on a couple of years or some such thing, and it's been going on for a while, so okay.

They're comfortable with six months.

I think that's uh reasonable for everyone, and if I could just add the only thing this is the reason why I asked the board to continue the whole matter for six months or so because the this, I mean, there's a presumption that a site's been if it's under construction, it's been longer than six months that it's a band.

That's just a presumption, but we've I think we've overcome that presumption in saying by the issuance of the new permits and the activities and saying that that's not the case here.

This isn't an abandoned site.

Uh they are doing work on the site and they're moving forward.

So I don't think we're in technical violation of this at this point.

That's why I denied the allegations at the outset, and that's why I asked that we just continue the hearing along.

It would seem more prudent for uh six months from the issuance of the permit for us to be back here, but I'll leave that for the board.

Okay, Mr.

Chairman, yes.

I think what he's saying is prudent.

I think we should probably continue this for three months, hear it, and then you know, if they're not moving along, we have ample time to act to before the six months from now is coming in effect.

I think we just delayed this for three months and get an update.

Understood.

Um from another perspective, if the um compliance officer is asking for six months and they think they can finish it in three, and no fines occur until before the inspector brings it back before us six months from now.

Um I understand the the compliance officers and the building department's desire to I know that the owner and tenant are motivated now by the fact that this thing has gone on long enough and they want to see it complete and they're here to talk with us.

I think that uh number one, they're motivated behind the pay rent, and I certainly understand the city inspectors uh point about wanting them to be motivated.

I think they are motivated, but again, I'll point out that no fine or action occurs number one before the six months, and number two before the inspector brings it back before us.

And so I from what the inspector is offering, I I don't I see no harm, no foul by uh going with a standard motion unless there's something that I'm missing.

Uh even if we just look at a three-month extension with no fines, we're not violating what you're saying either, is just that we're reviewing at that time.

Well, that puts it at nine months out, though.

If they're asking for six months now and we wait three months to hear it again, just three months from today.

Yeah.

I'm sorry?

I think you may have uh had uh have told us, but let me ask again during those two years.

What was happening that was keeping you from going forward?

So the contractor basically was defrauding my client, they paid the contract in full, and they kept saying it was almost done, almost done, almost done.

They finally had to get kicked off the project.

Then there was a bond, and the bond had to come and inspect to see the violations.

So we weren't allowed to change anything until they did the inspection to pay for kind of the fraud that my client suffered.

So it it just nobody wanted it to take this long.

My client was very frustrated in trying to get the contractor to go the whole time.

Um, so it just took that long for the process to unwind, and like we said, we've been paying rent on this the whole entire time, and you know, it's a prime piece of real estate on the busy corner, so it's very it's cost them a fortune, and we are suing to try to get that back.

But I mean he knows we're just trying to get the building done so we can so generate some income.

So this was not any like delay.

This has been really they're they're essentially victims of horrible experience here.

What's your best estimate of uh completion of construction?

I mean, a very if everything went perfectly fine, 60 days.

If you know we run into some other things, we think that that 90 to 120 would be kind of the out outsides of how long it'll take.

So if we wait three months from today and get a update, we'd have a pretty good update.

Yes, we'd have a really we'd have a really good update, and we might even be close to completion at that point.

So I think I think that's a very fair suggestion.

And after that, we wouldn't you could just set another three months, so you wouldn't be out, it wouldn't turn into nine months, it could just be six months at that time.

All right, I'm gonna make a motion that we just continue this for three months till and hear it again for an update.

So I can is there any other before we move on that?

I just think you know we've got we've got a couple of different points of view here, and I want to make sure we sort this out to the best interest of all concerned.

Uh not not to quash anything you're doing.

I just I want to have a motion on the floor now.

Say again, we do have a motion on the floor.

Well, you have discussion upon the motion.

Yeah, can I ask a question if we were to do the six-month fine, but let's say this hope this never happens, but in five and a half months comes along, and they're like we're still waiting for this license to come in or this inspection or whatever, and it's gonna take another month.

Can they come to you or can they come to us and say we need an extension on this?

Absolutely.

Okay.

And and remember, you have to accept an affidavit of non-compliance in order for the fine to run.

So number one, the city has to present it to you.

Oh, okay.

Again.

Right.

So if the city, if things are working out, then the city's not going to bring an affidavit of non-compliance.

Okay, good.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, may I add uh a word?

Um, I would just say that um I I don't necessarily have on have an objection to the continuance.

I think if we did do it that way, the city would come back in three months and ask for the exact same deadline date, deadline date that we're asking for today.

The only difference is adding a hearing in between those two time frames.

I think for their from their perspective, there's a difference also in the determination that a violation actually occurred, um, which I hear the conversation on that.

And I would just say our perspective on that from the city is that um it has it notwithstanding the activity that's occurred, the litigation, the for the frustrating circumstances.

Um the code does specify that if it's left for a period of three months in a state of partial construction.

I don't think we've heard any real debate about that fact that it has been in a state of partial construction for a very long period of time.

So that's our that's our theory of what the the violation is.

Um defer to the to the determination of the board what's best and whether or not you want to hear it one more time before the deadline.

If we come back, we would ask um for the same deadline in October, and then as others have stated if there was significant progress occurring in October, the the building department would have discretion to bring that affidavit um back at a later time or not.

And and the the landlord and the the tenant, the participants here would have another opportunity to come on that day, and we would again be arguing the point of whether or not it's it's has been left in a state of partial construction at that time.

So there would be another opportunity to um debate the issue of the the status of the construction and those sorts of things.

So the only difference between those two if the city came back with the same date of October, if we did uh did an extension that the the owner is asking for now, the only real difference between and they came back with the same date.

The only real difference between the two would be um that we're not making a declaration of violation today.

I I mean I don't want to necessarily speak for them, but I assume the reason that they're asking for that is because that does give a possibility to allow them to resolve the situation without a formal finding of a of a violation.

So I I understand that why they would why they would ask for that.

Um like I said, you've heard from our our team, we're just trying to get significant progress.

We understand that this has been a complicated situation, um, but our our code does the the permit issues, the contractor issues are are their own separate thing in terms of whether or not something is as a nuisance, and from our perspective, the fact that it's lingered in a state of partial construction well beyond the time frame that the code requires means that it that it is a nuisance in in our uh in our determination.

I then remember if you find a violation, they're subject to the higher fine for repeat violation.

So once you find one violation, they would come back as a repeat violation.

You're looking at five up to five hundred dollars per day.

Understand um if I could the only other thing I wanted to add is that I I still don't think under this statute that uh that there is a current violation.

I think there is an insinuation or presumption in this statute that the building is still partially constructed and that there's no nothing going on, and we know that that's not the case with this particular site.

Understood.

Thank you.

All right, I'm just gonna add I I hear two attorneys here in good faith giving us some good information representing the landlord and also the owner of the property, and I think we should continue for it again three months.

I have no objection.

Does anybody else have anything else to offer?

No, I have objections to that.

All right, would you motion on the floor?

Motion and a second it's on the floor.

So yeah, we agree about calling.

I'm sorry, please call for a month, please.

Council now, the motion and seconds on the floor to continue this for three months.

I do need a date.

Well, let's get the vote and then we'll get the we'll we'll tell you when it'll be on.

All right.

Um I have a second.

Sorry.

All right, all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

The motion.

So when's our next meeting in three months?

July.

Yeah, July 29.

So it'll be back before the board on July 29th.

Thank you very much.

And we just keep in the case.

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming and bringing us all of the data and helping us understand.

Please give us good information.

I thought you were approved Mr.

Simpson I would keep the board.

All right.

Giving you information.

Moving on.

We've already heard that was case or I agenda item three dot 20.

Um we've already heard 3.21.

3.22 has been withdrawn.

And that completes uh new business items.

That's correct.

All right.

Moving on to old business.

This is case 48-24.

Consider request by petitioners are e capital management LLC at 1950 McComer Avenue to reduce the fine regarding exterior services and abandoned building.

And if approved, issue an order that specifies a fine that includes administrative administration costs and establishes a date payable or the lien will revert to its original amount.

Sir, you're here to speak on this case.

Yes, I am.

My name is uh John Lou.

I'm a state certified uh building contractor, not the one that got fired from Keravy Congress.

Which is on sale at Costco, the pods are on sale just to anybody off, I think.

Well that clarification.

Um I am not the uh owner, I am uh an authorized person to uh appear, and uh Madam Secretary Nicole Spreck does have an notarized authorization on file.

Okay, very good.

I like these hearings for some remote.

Okay, it uh we have the authorization and board the uh administrative costs are one thousand one hundred and thirty-five dollars and twenty cents.

113520, yes, sir.

And uh did you say that the city has uh is in agreement with this orbit you said that let me ask you this.

What is the city's position on this?

We we uh we just like to get our our admin costs, investigative costs back from from the case, but beyond that we don't have any objection and what is that cost?

Do we know?

Yeah, that's the 1135.

Oh, okay.

Do I have any questions uh from the board on this or any?

Sorry, what is this the property that had the window that needed to be replaced?

Does board it at what is this?

This is a uh fence exterior surfaces abandoned building.

And that's all been fixed now, yeah.

Oh okay.

Um point out that looking at the affidavit, it was owned.

Uh the owner died.

His father lived out of state.

Oh, that's the same.

Uh the property was purchased by a new owner.

Am I correcting this?

And you have something for it.

I have uh undiagnosed.

I have undiagnosed OCD, and uh there is a uh incorrect statement in the application.

The date of death states uh November 21, 2018.

That if you look at the death certificate, the owner was found dead, sadly, at the age of 40 um on January 18, 2021.

So it's a little bit of a dyslexia and something else going on there that I do not approve of, so let's go ahead and get that corrected if that's okay.

Sorry about that.

Thank you.

I don't think that's gonna play a major part in the thing.

We do, but I appreciate the detail for the eye for detail.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, no problem.

And I opened the cases after that happened, and uh the father did try to maintain the home, but just couldn't do it.

We moted a couple of times, and we had to kind of take over, and then the lien started, and now they've stepped in, they've corrected the violations and quite a lien reductions.

All right, any questions from the board?

What page did that?

This one be on second, what page would that be on?

I don't have that for so uh the top one reduced lien page five.

How many days are we going on?

It's usually 30.

Right.

What's the number of days on this?

Typically it's 30.

33.

Sorry, this is the current lien amount.

What are we trying to reduce it to?

Uh we're reducing it to the city's hard costs.

Administrative costs, which are I mean, we're we're entertaining the concept.

Oh, I see it wasn't online.

Right.

No, that's it wasn't online either.

They called it out.

Okay.

Okay.

So that represents the city's hard costs and administrative costs in the chair.

Okay.

If I can just um and I apologize because we do have new board members.

So you have a policy that doesn't allow you to reduce any kind of fine below the administrative cost, so that at least the city on both sides, the enforcement and administration can be made whole.

So that is your policy.

So normally what we do in this situation is we'll read off like I did the amount, um, and that is your uh the the lowest you can go.

I see okay.

Thank you for that.

And I just want to clarify.

So you're you're working for the new owner who purchased the property and then made all the repairs.

Yes, yeah.

Because at OCD, the rep uh some of the repairs were done actually before they became technically the owner.

The fence repair was done way back.

Okay, waiting on the probate, the probate just concluded it, and then that's when the rest of the repairs were done.

Um, but yes, that is that's correct.

Okay, thank you.

And then of course the hard cost, yeah.

We don't want to see losing money in that way, so yeah, definitely bring a check to Nicole like in the next 48 hours.

Okay, thank you.

That's convenient.

I'm ready for a motion.

Okay, so everything's up to code now.

Yeah, yes, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I move to enter an order reducing the amount of the lien to administrative costs of 1,100 135.20 cents payable within 30 days, or the lien will revert to its original amount.

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Board members thank you.

Uh all right.

We're moving on to other board actions.

And uh, I'm assuming Madam Secretary were allowed to accept all of these affidavits of compliance of this one motion.

I'll allow it.

All right.

So regarding all of the uh the listed um affidavits of compliance five dot one dot one through five dot one dot nine.

Uh may I have a motion, please.

If I move to accept the affidavit is of compliance as second, second.

All in favor?

Aye, all opposed motion carries.

Next order of business is uh item 5.2 continued from March 25th.

Case 188-25.

Accept the affidavit of non-compliance for respondents, angel investment group of Tampa Incorporated at 1039 West Avenue for permits.

Um we have no compliance for that property.

I could bring up the picture as it stands today if you'd like.

It was the shed slash, I believe what they may have made it into a living space on the property that has not been permitted.

What's that ask us again?

1039 1039 West A.

Oops.

Sorry, we go.

So that was uh as of today this morning.

This shed here.

Um that has still not been permitted.

I've had no communication from this property owner.

Yeah, okay.

Anything else you wanted to add?

All right.

Any questions from the board?

I have a motion.

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

City's authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second.

All in favor?

Motion carries.

Item 5.3 case 191-25.

Accept the affidavit of non-compliance for respondents, Richard and Nicole Pendleton at 3268 San Mateo Street for permits.

Inspector Reese.

Good afternoon, Inspector Cat Reese.

Um, this is for 3268 San Mateo, case 191-25.

Um, again, this property has not come in compliance.

Um I believe when we brought it before the board, I did give ample time for them to uh get the um flexibility that they probably would have needed to keep the papers the way they were.

Um he waited until today to contact me and is traveling at this time, so I did advise him that I would be moving forward with the non-compliance.

Okay.

Board have any questions?

No.

May I have a motion, please?

I move.

Go ahead.

I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that poses fines and states if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed.

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

No second.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

5.4 on our agenda.

Um except case uh 3-26, accept the affidavit of non-compliance for respondents.

Kathy Barrow at 1910 Union Street for exterior surfaces, roof maintenance, door and window openings, exterior storage, and public health safety or welfare nuisance, uh, which is a pool.

Uh let's see.

Uh you aren't Inspector Kasman, but we will gladly speak with the service.

Shrunk.

Umspecman's on vacation, but I went by the property this morning, and uh all the violations still exist.

There's a fire at the uh property.

There's stuff spread around the property.

Doors and windows are broken, holes in the roof from the fire, and the unsafe pool and everything else that's on the property.

So no change.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Any questions from the board?

Do you know if Inspector Kasman has been in touch with the owner?

Or does he have any update?

Um I don't think so.

Okay, but I do I do know that the property is foreclosed and scheduled for option in June.

So okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

We have a motion, please.

Oh move to accept the affidavit of non-compliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed.

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

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Mr.

Standing.

Inspector.

Next item 5.5 on our agenda, case 15-26.

Accept the affidavit non-compliance for respondents.

Weston Road Investments, Columbus LLC at 705 Vine for permits.

Inspector Reese.

I hear that.

All right.

All right.

Uh point of order.

Uh one of our counselors, madam secretary.

This is for an affidavit of non-compliance.

That's correct.

And I am not familiar with our procedure in terms of how or if we entertain uh someone that's here to speak about the property.

Yes.

I'm not sure.

You haven't heard it's at the board's discretion, but uh, you have done it in the past.

Okay, any objection to hearing from uh the property owner?

She may have to be sworn in.

I'm sorry.

I don't know if she's been sworn in 130.

Oh, okay.

You've been sworn in.

Okay.

Please step forward and uh share your name with us, please.

And who you are?

Uh my name is Lauren Finney.

Uh, I'm here in uh representation of the owner uh Western Road Investments LLC.

Um I wanted to share just insight on you know that no work has been done uh since the violation, and that we um have attained a new contractor who is expected to pull a permit on May 3rd.

Thank you for that.

You're welcome.

Would you like me to go through the whole slide hearing?

Why don't we just help us figure out what we're gonna do here?

Okay, Inspector Catrice, City of Clayward.

This will be for 705 Vine Avenue case number one five-26.

This was in reference to the interior remodel, um, including plumbing on the property.

These were the notice of violations that were sent.

And then Vine is gonna be just south of Seminole Street, uh East of Myrtle Avenue.

This was the stop work order that was on the prop that I posted on the property the day of the violation.

416 2025.

Am I reading that correctly?

Yes, okay, thank you.

That was a compliance date that they had to meet on that.

This was the property that um I approached with the workers on site.

Um so obviously the work is done.

There's no updated pictures to that, but I did provide a screenshot to show that there has been no permits pulled um since we brought this for before the board.

And uh so the original compliance date was set for February 28th.

They've actually gotten an extra month because I had to continue all my cases for personal issues.

Um so at this point I do believe that the non-compliance should go in until they come into compliance with the permit.

Okay.

Is the would was all the work completed on this thing?

I I haven't been in there since the day of the initial inspection, which I did advise to stop work as well as PCCLB.

So as if it if it has continued, I would not know because I haven't I wouldn't try to go back into the property at the at this point.

The the violation is there.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Can we ask this lady over there?

Ma'am, please step come back and chat with us again if you would.

Thank you.

Uh help me wrap my head around uh what occurred here because the way our process works, we typically will get the inspector will find the violation, she'll issue her documents and her violation, and then you have some time to work with, so on and so forth.

And we're very late in the game now in that the city's asking for affidavits of non-compliance after a year of this, and I'm trying to I I have don't have enough data and understand exactly what occurred and and why this thing ran so long.

Um I I knew I know that we had an extension because we were in search of a contractor.

Um, but um, you know, when that stop order came, all work was ceased, it's still sitting to my knowledge, it's still sitting untouched.

Um contractors are they sign on and then you know some sometimes they just disappear.

So we've actually got a secured contractor now who is ready to pull the permit uh the start of May and go from there and keep everything in compliance from there, but we have not touched their property since uh we received that stop order.

So can I just ask why they haven't been submitted yet?

Uh because we were in in between contractors, we couldn't get a contractor to but you said she's they're gonna submit on May 3rd, why not yesterday or today?

Uh because they are finishing up another job, another contract.

Um, so before they dive into this one, that's the date that they told us.

They haven't told us anything else.

Okay.

Contractor.

So they haven't submitted anything for permit yet.

Nothing yet.

No, they just told us that they plan to pull either on or by the 3rd of May.

Okay.

So that's if they submit, then there's obviously there's a bit of a waiting time before the permit is issued and work goes on and so on and so forth.

So uh I'm trying to reconcile this the amount of time that this took where we are now with a affidavit of non-compliance and you know how all of that affects uh completion of the property and what our best course of action is.

So I'm welcome to any input chair.

Just please provide some input.

Uh we have in the past um we've had the board just delay making a decision on on the affidavit of non-compliance.

Um I think for this particular situation because they do need to get the permit and they do need to complete all the work per the permit.

I um it doesn't sound like delaying the affidavit of non-compliance is maybe the best route.

Um it is in violation, they you know doesn't appear that they're disputing that part of it, they've just had some trouble with the contractor.

This could um also be addressed just through the lien um reduction uh process.

Once they do come into compliance, they come back and they get a lien reduction, and that's where they explain all the difficulties that they incurred, and then the the board could reduce the fine.

I would just say that um uh functionally the difference that that would create is that um there if the fines did accrue because the board accepted the affidavit and they have to come back for the reduction, then the city would be asking for the costs uh of the case, so they would they would have to pay that minimum at least.

Whereas if the affidavit was if you delayed decision on that, um there could be I guess a possibility that the case could be dismissed if they were able to get it into compliance in between that time frame.

Um I'm just giving you the different scenarios that I've seen in front of this board.

Um our position at this for the city is that we we did give some additional time beyond um uh you know the the deadline there that this could have come back to you last month, but it it's here now.

Um and we do think that they would have an avenue at least some relief through a lien reduction if you were to go ahead and accept the affidavit today.

And this wouldn't stop any permits from going through or anything like that.

No, that that wouldn't have any impact on on that.

That the permit process is separate.

Um so the the hurdles that they have to get through there is that they do the contractor will have to have the plans in order and then we'll have to meet all the requirements of the permitting.

So which it sounds like you know, that's something that you know they are kind of dependent on the professional to take care of.

We understand that um difficulty too, but we we have to operate with with the the deadlines and and the frameworks that we have.

So they're typical we have and that's the city's position.

So the the ultimate determination is yours, so you can choose to do whatever you want.

You can accept the affidavit of non-compliance, which would trigger the fine starting.

You can wait, it's it's up to you.

Okay, yes, ma'am.

I have a suggestion that we just continue until next month and see if their permits are in place.

If I could add, um, if I had communication on this matter, I wouldn't have brought the noncompliance, but I've had no communication about that.

And um, you know, at this point, I like the attorney advised, um, they could just do the lien reduction, but this we need to make sure that this is up to code through a permit, and we we're not even in that property to understand that everything is safe there, and we can't just go off of hearsay with no proof of a quote or anything from a contractor, because that's typically what I would ask for.

All right, let me get the quote, and we can continue this, but that has not there's no quote from the contractor.

No, and no application of permit submitted yet.

No, sir.

Okay, okay, okay.

Um Ms.

Reese, on your um recommendation here.

I'm I'm reading this and it says uh requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before 228.

That time has passed.

That that was the initial order.

Yeah, that was the initial order.

Okay.

So could we change so we're now we're just doing yeah, that was the initial correct.

So we're well beyond the 228 by about not quite two months.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, and so we would be doing an app if we move forward, we would be uh doing an affidavit of non-compliance.

Right starting at what day though?

So I mean that's that's not we're not giving it up.

You accept the affidavit of non-compliance.

That's just an acceptor, accept the affidavit.

Unless we decide to continue it or when is your contractor supposed to come on board?

Uh if you can just come to the voting, thank you.

I didn't know if that was a hand.

Uh May 3rd is the date.

Counselor, you had something going on for yes, Mr.

Chair, thank you.

Uh the the uh just the again position of the the city.

Um but we uh the order that this board rendered gave the initial deadline of 228.

So that's already in an order.

Um if the permit was issued on the very day that the contractor came on board, they were able to come in and apply and get a permit on that day, May 3rd, I believe.

Um, they would still be in violation with with the previous order.

Um, but that would um I guess create some avenue with the second part of the order, which is the six months to complete the permit within six months of the issuance of the permit.

So um it would be some kind of hybrid in terms of determining whether you know they were in compliance or not.

That's why I was suggesting that um accept the affidavit and then allow for a lien reduction if they were able to come in, but um certainly defer to the to the board on on how you want to determine this or handle this, but um the possibility of meeting that February date has is gone.

So thank you.

Do you know the um date the um first requested uh compliance by February the first compliance date was set for the um for April 26th of 2025, um based off of the first stop work order, and then multiple compliance dates were given after that okay.

But the one that ended up with who the one that's triggering this from 228.

Oh, yes, that's what was the hearing date for that one.

I believe it was we this was um brought before the board in January.

January, okay.

All right.

I would so they've had almost three months.

Yeah, I would entertain a motion uh to accept the affidavit of non-compliance.

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

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

Second, all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

The rest of you probably are not aware, but Madam Secretary told me that case number 1626, which is next on our list, is going to be continued until May 27th.

So we will move forward to agenda item 5.7, case 18-26, accept the affidavit, the non-compliance for respondents Wolf Empire LLC.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

I just food for thought, certainly defer to Madam Clerk and Mr.

Salzman.

But if we have an affidavit of non-compliance, that is a sworn statement from our side that it's in non-compliance and and it's at least the position of the city that you could accept those without a full on presentation, unless there was someone here, like in the last case where they had input um for you to hear on that matter.

Otherwise, I think you can accept the non-compliance affidavits in the same way that you accept the other affidavits without objection in bulk.

That's my position.

I'll certainly defer to the clerk and and your the board attorney if or I don't know if any of the other staff have a different, but that's the limit of time.

Why would we continue it anyway?

Well, and if if I can offer my only thought is as chairman was to be considerate because the owner was here and willing to provide data.

Certainly, if the owners here, I think that the board need has to hear it from the owner always.

But I'm what I'm suggesting is that for the other affidavits that are submitted um if there's no one here to offer any additional uh that is an affidavit that you could just accept without having without a full-on presentation.

That's my personal opinion.

I certainly defer to others if they want it, might save us some time.

Do you understand everybody understand what he's saying?

And that if there's nobody here to speak, that rather than hear from the inspector regarding the affidavit of non-compliance, we could simply accept it.

Yes, but but uh what I'm trying to clarify is who asked for this to be continued.

I asked for the continuance.

Um the property owner came here.

Um she did show me pictures, and I advise her I need to come there in person.

But considering that she showed me some proof of evidence of compliance, I want to afford her um you know an inspection, she thought that I would just pop up again without you know being scheduled.

So what I'm saying to to you all is that the city inspectors asked us to continue it.

She did this one that we're reading right now or no, this is for uh the continuance was for mission hills, 1626.

The previous point.

And I don't understand why we're not just voting on 5.6.

That is the one I asked for.

Oh, I see.

Then I'll go back to what I just said.

Then if the inspector is asking us to continue it, why wouldn't we continue it?

Because they're the ones that are going to determine whether or not such an asking of non-compliance, or compliance.

To my respected colleague, I would say the city's asking for this, and that that's why I wanted to bring that before you.

So your suggestion we make a motion for continuance rather than just pass it over.

Right, because that's what we're being asked to do by the inspector to make sure that I mean if they come in compliance, right?

Then we're not gonna bring it back.

Right, I'd say so.

That's okay.

Yeah.

So you're you're you're the city's requesting a motion to continue case 16-26.

Yes, not the city.

The inspector is.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, good.

I'm sorry, this was day up.

She is here.

This is I mean, this is this is odd for us.

We don't do this real often.

So right, no, no.

This is new to me too.

I would entertain a motion to continue case 1626, please.

Second.

No, I'm looking for a motion.

I'm looking for the I'll make the motion.

The case 16-26 is continued until May 27, 2026.

No, you can second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Thank you.

Case is continued.

Thank you.

I thank you.

If I may, I think we may have been talking about two different things.

Yeah, that's what I think.

Okay.

I follow now.

Okay.

I think it was actually.

No, absolutely.

You don't have to have anybody here for you to make your accepting these advocates.

I get that.

I mean, I I tend to lean in the direction of matters, and if somebody's willing to show up and be here, then give them the courtesy of allowing, you know, yeah, allowing them to speak.

Absolutely.

Of course.

Yes, you know.

I would go even further and say that that's required.

It's mandatory.

And um, we if if a home, if a representative of the property owner who's about to have a fine imposed against their property, is here and wants to speak on that non-compliance affidavit.

We are required by law, due process to hear what they have to say.

Um so but if they're not here, and the only evidence you have is the affidavit, then our position is you can just accept that.

Now, if you have questions and you want the city team to present the full story so that you all can be refreshed, we're happy to do that.

I'm just suggesting we could move it.

And I and I agree.

I mean, you started for some reason we started going into detail on some of these.

Unless someone's here, I don't believe that you need to do that because the case has been presented to you.

You have your order, all you're doing is following up with something you previously had determined.

This is a pro forma unless there's some comments by the city or the individual.

That's fine.

You'll have to forgive my uh I'm new at this job.

No, no, sir.

It's something that actually I'm all for it.

No, this changed this changed over time with some of the boards, but um we didn't agree with that necessarily.

It's just not something you need to do.

Understood.

Well, I appreciate that.

Um I'm sure everybody will appreciate getting out earlier by not having to go through this.

So um moving on.

Next uh agenda item 5.7, case 1826, accept the affidavit of non-compliance for respondents Wolf Empire OLC at 1738 Northworth Harrison Avenue for permits.

Um ready to I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that imposes fines in states if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed.

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

I have a second.

Second, all in favor, aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

It's been withdrawn.

Uh next on our list, we have nuisis abatement lien filings.

Um case 92-25.

Accept the news abatement lien for respondents.

Ibrahim Begovic, Edmina Trustee at 1353 Lake V Road for an operative vehicle and issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met.

Good afternoon, board.

This is going to be uh nuisance abatement at 1353 late you.

Dave Jensen code inspector of the city of Clearwater case numbers 92-25.

Uh it's going to be one violation 31503 V6 for an inoperative vehicle.

Uh these are the dates of the notice compliance uh return receipt is not better received back for the mail.

This is the vehicle in question.

There is no registration attached to the vehicle.

There has not been since the inception of this case on 317.

I did uh put a courtesy notice on the vehicle uh before posting it officially with no luck.

So posting with compliance date on 4-3 after the compliance date vehicle is still there, no registration on it.

Close up the vehicle, no plea.

This is Monday.

Vehicle still there, no registration on it.

Went by today, and the vehicle is still there in the same condition with no license plate on it.

Compliance could be met for the inoperative vehicle.

Vehicle must display a current valid registration or be removed from the property.

Asking for uh compliance five days after the board renders its order.

Do we have any questions?

No, I have a motion.

I don't have a question on this specific one, but is this another situation where do we need the presentation for this?

There's nobody to so these are actually an order that you're coming up with, so these are a little different.

The other one is a follow-up to an order you already gave.

So we like to at least have something uh put in the record in case uh we would have to defend this.

So we do request at least a uh documentation, uh, a minimum presentation.

And I provide the minimum.

Thank you for asking and thank you for clarifying.

Okay, and thank you for providing minimum.

We have no questions.

May I have a motion, please?

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

If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with a reasonable costs, which will become a lien on the property.

If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed.

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

All right.

All in favor, aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Next case item agenda item 6.2, case 105-26.

Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Lisa Upshur at 1610 North Madison Avenue for an operative vehicle and issue an order with compliance deadline or authorize the city to mitigate the violation.

If compliance is not met.

Inspector Dixon.

There's one violation at the property for an inoperable vehicle.

Uh courtesy notice was sent out in March and with no uh no change, so the notice is posted and mailed in April.

There's a vehicle in the driveway, it's got flat tires, expired tag.

And it's the posting today, it still has flat tires and an expired tag.

Compliance can be met by removing the vehicle from the property or make repairs so the vehicles roadworthy as well as display current license plates that is assigned to the vehicle.

I'm requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order.

I had spoken to them.

Apparently, it's an uncle's vehicle that's out of town, but no chance.

Questions from the board.

I have a motion, please.

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

If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry into the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the responsible cost, which will become a lien on the property.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Next case, item agenda 6.3, case 106-26.

Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Jing Bai Wang and Xing Tong at 200 Windward Island for lot clearing and issue in order with the compliance deadline.

And authorize the city to mitigate the violation of compliance is not met.

Inspector Maddox.

Kevin Maddox code compliance inspector for City of Clearwater.

Good afternoon.

This is for 200 Windward Island, case number 106 26.

It's a nuisance violation, and at the end, I'll you'll understand why it's not a nuisance abatement.

Um short, this is a large active beehive in the front wall of the garage door, which we do not abate.

Um the code section is listed there, showing uh that you can see that it's a nuisance based on furnishing of breeding of flies, mosquitoes, wood destroying insects or otherwise threatens public health, safety, and welfare, which this does.

Notice of violation was mailed and posted on 4-3 compliance data 413.

The green card was not received back.

I have not received any information from the owner, a call, communication, or otherwise.

This was uh called in by the neighbor who wanted to be here just to explain hearsay right now, but he he told me, advised me that this has been going on for about two years.

Um the house in front of you is from the street.

Um in this area of the front is where this blown up area uh can be seen, and there's breaks throughout the wood and bees that I can see going in and out.

I have a video 30 seconds long that I took yesterday if you'd like to see it.

Otherwise, I attest that bees were moving in and out of this wall.

This was on 43 of 2026 with the posting.

Uh and then 416.

I'm always trying to take a picture with a B in it, but if you'd like to see the video, I certainly have it.

Uh compliance can be met for the nuisance beehive by using a registered beekeeper for live removal of the beehive or a pest control operator for eradication of the beehive.

Uh with this recommendation for case 106 26, 31503 V5A violation large active beehive in the front wall of the house requesting compliance on or before May 8th, 2026, or a fine of $50 per day per violation for each day the violation continues to exist.

I have a question for you, Inspector.

Why a fine of $50 per day?

I mean, we're used to seeing fines larger than that.

If it's a uh normally we'd say ask for fit uh 150 dollars a day.

Um my compliance manager uh felt that at $50 and I agreed with her, $50 was just uh um more reasonable amount for this, but it could be 150, but 50 is what we recommended.

Is the uh dwelling occupied?

Uh currently, to my knowledge from the neighbors, no.

Okay.

So when you you sent the notice that never got returned to you, you sent it to the address.

Uh the address that the bees are at.

No, uh we we send it to I don't have it in front of me, but the address that would be in um property appraiser for the owner.

That's the legal requirement.

That that notice goes to the property appraisers address that we have for the property.

Sometimes the address of the parcel is the address put in property appraiser.

Sometimes it's in Tampa, New York, Chicago, somewhere else.

Uh, we just legally use the address on file with property appraiser.

So you see, but you haven't did is there like a phone number that you can call the owner?

We don't have access to phone numbers.

Sometimes we find them in files from earlier if something somebody happened to get a number, some and we try and document that we try and look back.

No, I was not able to find a phone number or secure it.

Any other questions?

I have a motion.

Well, is this is this a nuisance abatement?

No, it's a nuisance.

Declaration.

Just a nuisance.

Oh, this would be a nuisance um handled through fines.

Right.

What you want to motivate the owner to take care of it rather than the city hire a beekeeper to go out.

I don't believe we currently have any abatement ability to use a beekeeper.

It was something done in the past, but we don't have it any longer to our disposal.

Prior to the meeting.

Okay.

We don't know which one.

I think we would just ask for your standard first and second motion.

Oh you just go back to the first page.

First violation on page one.

Wouldn't that be an unsafe building though?

Uh would it be an unsafe building?

No, this is just being more of a nuisance to the uh general public.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Yes.

I moved to find the respondent in violation of the code is re or referred to in the appetite in this case.

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

All opposed.

Motion carried.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondents to correct the violations on it before May eighth.

Is that what you're doing with?

May eighth, yes.

Twenty twenty-six.

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

All in favor?

All opposed.

And I have just a general question.

Would you hire someone to remove the hive in this case or exterminate?

Just out of curiosity.

I don't have a professional answer for that, but in listening to others who I've asked the question about because this does not come up very often.

As I was looking things up, it looked like it needed to be a professional beekeeper to take away the live bees, but in Florida, I did not find where it was illegal to use pesticides to kill them.

But uh one way or the other to get rid of the hive, they have those two options.

Anything else from the board?

That's it.

And if you need a beekeeper, I got a number for one.

Thank you all.