Today's meeting of the municipal code enforcement board is called to order on March of May 27th.

Welcome everyone.

Please rise with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please be seated.

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

Please remember to turn off your cell phones.

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

We serve voluntarily.

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

The board considers new business items in two parts.

First a 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 calm civil manner.

Individuals who conduct themselves otherwise will be asked to leave.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our first order of business is to review and approve the minutes of last month's meeting.

Make a motion.

All in favor?

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Next on the agenda are new business items.

Our first case 3.1 on the agenda is continued from January 28th, 2026.

It's case 14-26.

Find respondents Richard and Janet Carnivalli at 681 Castler Avenue in violation of code for permits and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine compliance is not met.

Sir, would you come forward and state your name?

Your address.

Good afternoon, Cobard.

I hope everyone had a good weekend.

Um I am Inspector Kat Reese with the City of Clearwater.

This is for case 14-26 at 681 Castler Avenue.

This is going to be for one violation for section 4-203.

Specifically, this is for a permit required for the structure that was with a concrete pad on the property.

I've also posted on the property.

And this is the original inspector's photos of the structure that was being built at the time.

It's just and this is as of today, which it's very difficult to see about the tree, but the roofing is still there.

You can still see the window through the fencing from Street View and there is the route as well.

So I have been in communication with Mr.

Carnivalli.

He has attempted to he needs an FLS, which is why didn't the first continuance of a flexibility.

Okay.

I don't want to say the V word, but most of you know it is that.

Um so he did come in the office and started the FLS, however, it it was incomplete for quite you know for the time frame that they allow, um, which they um had to end up voiding out, which he was advised of.

I from what I understand he was out of town on business, wasn't able to come back in and complete it.

He also has a lot of confusion on that, so I did speak with him this afternoon and gave him some suggestions to go speak directly to zoning after um today.

So this is just um some of the issues that need to be done for that the the flexibility to be accepted for the DRC to hear.

So the first step for him is getting an approved flexibility and FLS.

Once it's approved, which needs to be heard first, um, then he can move on with the permit process.

So it is some steps for him.

Um this is just the screenshot that it was voided uh February 2nd of 2026.

So the compliance can be met by obtaining an issue permit and completing a permit.

We are requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 29th, 2026 with the completion of permit three months from issuance of the of the permit.

I am willing to budge on that date because I know realistically now that he's here and I've spoken to him today.

That's that's not really feasible for him.

So I'm gonna let him come up and speak his piece on what time frame he believes he needs realistically to get the FLS actually completed to be heard to then move on to the next step.

Thank you.

Sir before you begin, I have a question to ask you that I should have asked you before our inspector presented.

Do you admit or deny the violation?

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

The violation of constructing uh shed.

I am it.

All right, thank you.

All right, um very good.

Um would you like to tell us?

Well, after talking to Kat, uh I realize the FLS needs to get uh applied for and then approved with uh certain meeting dates, and knowing that's the dates are only held on a certain time.

I'm gonna need until probably the end of August to complete the FLS and to get the zoning permits.

So that's all I'd ask that I can have it extended until the end of August.

Okay, so you plan to move forward and I plan on moving forward.

Yes, excellent.

I feel confident in all this now.

All right.

Does the board have any questions?

What's the flexibility that we're taking for here?

I don't want to speak too much on it, but the shed is in a setback, so he needs to get that approved to move forward with the permit.

Oh, I see.

So if we I I am not object, I don't object to a continuance till August to allow him ample time to get that FLS in and approved, and then we can move forward from there, and I'll do another continuance if need be to allow him time for the permit.

Any other questions?

Is this a continuance that we're going for?

No, we're going to uh follow standard procedure.

First, we need to do the first motion declaring violation, then decide on the second motion whatever.

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

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

And I have a second motion, please.

I moved enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before August 26, 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 length.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Check make sure everybody's mic is on.

There we go.

All right.

We'll continue.

Next on our agenda is item 3.2 continued from February 25th and March 25th.

Case 29-26.

Fine respondents, Connor Petron at 3804 big Brigadouan circle.

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 that case?

Sir, please come forward and stage tonight.

Thank you, sir.

You're the owner of the property.

Correct.

Very good.

Sir, do you admit or deny the violation?

I admit.

All right.

Excellent.

All right, can I get a first motion, please?

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

Second.

All in favor?

All opposed?

Motion carries.

Sir, if you'd like to have a seat, we'll hear from the inspector.

And then call you back up.

Hello again.

Inspector Cat Reese, City of Clearwater.

This is for case 29-26 at 3804 Brigadoon Circle.

This is going to be for one violation, Section 4-203.a dot one, specifically for permit needed for the patio enclosure, much like many of the other cases.

First notice went out April 23rd of 2025, with the final being December 19th of 2025.

It had multiple certified mails assigned both for May of 2025 and for December.

This is just the aerial view of Brigadoon, and he is in the inner circle of the property.

This is notice posted to the property.

And this is for the patio enclosure that was built.

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

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

So I have been in contact with Mr.

Petrid as well.

Uh a few times actually, because there are steps that each homeowner has realized they need a survey to move forward.

The HOA agreement.

So I did extend a lot of Brigadune out for that reason.

Um unfortunately, we we do have to move on with the cases, so we don't have super old cases in the future.

Um Connor has reached out to me last week.

He was having issues with contractors, although we don't suggest contractors or recommend any.

So that's where we're at today.

Excellent.

Inspector, just just a moment.

Oh, sorry.

Yes.

Um the uh patio is finished.

Is the enclosure?

How long has it been that way?

It's been there for about 20 years, or if not more.

But that is unfortunately.

Once the violation is found, that violation can is continues to exist each day.

So everyone does have to come come in compliance.

It is a very unfortunate circumstance that everyone has in that property, and I've I've been working with everyone on their own separate timelines because everybody's life looks a little different.

Umce communication stops, or they tell me they're gonna do something and they don't reach back out, I move on.

That's just the way I work.

How did you find out about this?

It was complaint driven from uh one of the residents in the the property.

She has some concerns of property value going down based off of you know the condition of the property.

Um so I I see both sides.

Um not that it's it doesn't matter what I see if the violations there, and that's just the fact of the matter.

Okay, what's the date of that uh violation?

Um complaint, you know.

The original complaint came in April of 2025.

So we're going on you know over a year with the violations, and I'm still working with people who have been in communication, have shown me some progress of some kind.

Thank you.

There's always problems with Brigadier, things like it's got some forever.

There's gonna be quite a few uh in the near future.

Okay, is this just like a neighborhood and it's a townhouse community, so none of them can pull their own permits because it's townhouse community, they have an HOA.

Uh the issue that we're coming across is um the patios are going past their property line, so that's why we had to generate we had to get with the HOA attorney, the city agreed to this agreement form that's being submitted to so that they can move along.

Um a lot of them were banking on using that contract of who has sadly passed.

So and was it just like did they go and build their own patios, or they moved into these houses where these patients had built and nobody knew?

Most of them bought the the the property with the patio already there, but um that's the code world doesn't.

I'm just trying to figure out you mentioned there's seems to be a lot of them that have these patios and I just didn't know and yes, yeah, okay, good, thank you.

But look the good news is once everybody comes in compliance there, the violations have been found and taken care of, so everyone could move on with their lives, Mr.

Petra.

What would you like to share with us today?

Well, I was one of the ones who actually paid to have my concrete patio and screen enclosure uh built.

Um I don't know remember the contractor name, but I do have the invoice on my phone, like Sunshine or something contractor over in Tampa.

They did a lot of the units in Bergadoon, and they didn't pull a permit for any unit, any anything that they constructed.

They told us that they did, and they did.

So that's where we're why we're here 20 years later, because we all thought it was all permitted, everything good, and then one complaint by a neighbor opens up a huge can of worms.

So that's what we're doing.

Did you have did you ask to see the permit?

Um I did not at the time.

Um 20 years ago, I was you know, a little bit younger.

Um Boris uh he I don't think he asked for to see the permit either.

Boris is the the contractor slash handyman who was helping everybody get the permits, and uh you know he was there when I was there, um so he paid as well that at that time to get it installed for his unit, and I don't think he asked for the permit either, just believe him.

So you know yeah, in the future would pay fast.

For sure, yeah, a live and learn, yes.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, but that's that's really uh the problem that I found is since Boris has passed, um, that I'm I'm having trouble finding a contractor who wants to do this or knows the steps to do this.

I talked with a guy yesterday who said, Oh, you know, you can pull your own permit, just go down to the permanent office that went there this morning, and they of course told me no, and um so I'm just looking for a contractor.

Uh I don't know if I you know uh should be enough time, but I don't know.

Okay.

All right.

Um how much time do you need?

I'm I'm really not sure.

I mean having gotten you know calls back from a few said it helps me one guy um maybe two months would be I think that would be reasonable for yeah to get everything done.

And if we would have extra time, would you stay in communications with the inspector?

Yes, definitely.

Yeah, I have no problem if we go with August 29th.

Yeah, that would bring it up to like July.

29th.

Oh, yeah.

Inspector Reese, what do you think about July 29th?

I have no objection.

Is if I see a permit in the in in the system and it's the I will watch it and continue make sure it continues to move forward to being an issue permit, and then hopefully we don't have to come back here.

Can I can I I just ask a question?

Why can't he pull his own permit?

Is it because it's a town hall?

It's an HOA community, so they cannot pull owner builders there.

And he needs a contractor to pull the that is correct.

Thanks.

All right.

Any other questions?

So you're okay with July 29th.

I'm gonna work hard on it and not stay in communication just to keep it.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

May I have a motion, please?

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

Maybe we already did this.

Sorry.

So the second motion, I move to enter an order requiring the respondents to correct the violations on or before July 29, 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.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, sir.

Next on our agenda case 3.3 has been withdrawn.

Number 3.4, continued for March 25th, 2026, case 57-26 by the respondents Martinez Assets LLC at 1533 Drew.

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.

Inspector Cat Reese, this is going to be at 1533 Jew Street for case number 57-26.

It's going to be for one violation for permits required specifically for permits for the fence installed on the property.

It also was installed facing the wrong way.

Also posted on the property December 9th of 2025.

This is going to be right along Jew Street, just uh east of Highland.

Um that's what it used to look like uh back in 2021.

Um this is the property pretty much today.

There is a structure being built there, so it is difficult uh today to see the fence that I'm talking about.

So this fence right here is the fence in violation.

And this was uh the original inspector's pictures uh when the fence was brand new.

And this is a picture of it today, so it's very difficult because there's high weeds in the back.

Uh it's a construction site, so that's the picture I have as today.

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

Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 29, 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.

And the fence is facing the wrong way, you said that is correct.

Okay.

And you're and you're sure it's that property and not the other properties?

Yes, because he at the same time he has he also the property owner owns 1537 Drew Street, which is right next to it.

Okay.

Um, and the that fence on that property, he came in compliance with that, but for some reason is ignoring the new bill.

Okay.

We do if I'm not mistaken.

The code regarding fence is that it's got to be the good side out.

That is correct.

Okay.

All right.

The images that you presented there have the dates, timestamps?

Yes.

Um, so let me go back.

Um, this was from today.

I know you can't see it's right in the middle.

I saw that one.

Yep.

Um these were in um Inspector Espinoza's pictures.

Um, I don't know why they don't have photos, but these words uploaded into a cellar on her inspection date, which was April.

Of what year?

Um we don't know exactly.

I'm sorry, it was December 11th of 2024.

I'm familiar with this one, it's right around the corner from me.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a first motion, please?

Mr.

Chairman, I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the afternoon in this case.

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Motion carries.

May I have a second motion, please?

Mr.

Chairman, I'll move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the volages on for June 29th, 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 east violation continues to exist.

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

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector.

Our next case on our agenda 3.5 has been withdrawn.

3.6 continued for March 25th, 2026, case 59-26.

Fine respondents, Kathy Barrow at 1910 Union 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.

Inspector Kat Reese with the City of Clearwater.

This is going to be for 1910 Union Street.

Case number 59-26.

I apologize that was the typo.

Permits, this is going to be for one violation for permits required, specifically for one shed that is partially constructed and one outdoor kitchen slash bar with electrical attached to it.

First notice went out September 18th of 2025.

The final was October 28th of 2025.

I had certified mail signed on October 2nd of 2025.

This is going to be on Union Street, which is uh just west of Hercules.

So this is the kitchen bar um structure that is in the back of the property, um, which is facing the water front, so I believe there are some rules to that, but nonetheless, it's there.

This is the partially uh constructed shed or accessory structure that's being built there.

I know General Code presented this case to you as well, this property for the pool and the condition of the property, so I believe it's already in violation.

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

Uh requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 29th and completion of the permit six months from the ocean 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.

Do we ask anyone present for this case?

I do.

Okay.

Yeah.

Uh Inspector Reese, have you been in touch with the owner?

No.

Um I've never had contact.

I believe that the property owner is she is not available, I believe, uh, due to medical reasons.

Her son is living on the property.

Um, and he has an unfortunate uh lifestyle, so I've never been able to reach him.

And um, since my violation has started, there was also a structural fire on the property, so there's also an unsafe case there.

I'm not sure if Mr.

Larson has had any contact with anybody there, but I personally have never.

When you say Mr.

Larson, you're talking about yes, Inspector Larson.

Inspector Larson.

And he's he's got the fire case or by the other case?

Okay, it is an active unsafe case at this time.

Okay.

All right.

May I have a first motion, please?

First motion, violation exists.

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

Yes.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

The 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 June 29th, 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 I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector Reese.

Number 3.7 on our agenda.

It is continued for March 25th.

Case 60-26 by respondents Taiwan Hall, Senior, Judy Hall, Sin Dara and SICA throng Dara.

It's 707 Lake Drive 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?

No.

Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Hey, I'm Inspector Pat Reese with the City of Clearwater.

This is going to be for 707 South Lake Drive, case number 60-26.

So it's going to be for uh one violation for permits required.

Uh, this is specifically for the shed installed on the property.

Um, this is also uh an old case that I kind I started over.

So my first um issuance of notice of violation was March 18th of 2025.

The final was June 16th of 2025.

Certified mail was May 30th of 2025.

Um this is gonna be on Lake Drive, which is just south of Turner and uh yeah, no.

What is that?

Lake Drive.

So sorry.

Weird spot.

Okay, so it's just north of Druid Road.

So this was the uh Google photo, and this is from back in 2019 uh where the there's the arrow pointing, there's no shed there at that or that time.

I believe.

Okay, thank you for the zoom.

Yeah, I you're welcome.

And in 2023, you can now see it, which I believe I have the zoom, so you see the pro the structure there in the back.

Wow.

This is the uh an updated photo that was taken July 9th of 2025.

This shows the structure is still there.

I did have an updated photo from today.

It is there.

I I forgot to upload it, but um so a compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing the uh said permit.

Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before.

Oh, I apologize for that date.

629 of 2026 and completion of the permit six months from the issuance of the said permit.

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

Um I have been in contact with Mr.

Hall.

I spoke with him the last time, but prior to uh the continuance and instructed him on what he needed to do.

Um he called me last week, advised me that he has decided he's going to start taking the shed down.

It would be more um costly to him to get it permitted, which was fine.

I told him just make sure you called me before today so I can come and take a picture, even if it's not totally completed, just starting it.

I can do a continuance.

Um I went to the property today.

The shed is still up in the same place, and no work was done.

I have no further communication from him.

Okay.

And you send it today.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, I just forgot to update the picture.

I'm assuming the shed is larger than a 10 by 10.

It is, which is kind of the make break point, is it not?

It is larger than 10 by 10, and it was constructed on the property, so it does need engineer plans to get permitted.

That's why he opted to just take it down.

Um, and I told him, yeah, you can get a you know, prefab.

Um it's it's cheaper that way, but he didn't do anything he said he was going to do.

Okay.

Now notice on this that was a typo.

The 425.

It's actually 629 of 2026.

629, okay.

All right.

Morton, you have any questions?

Yeah.

The uh that Google picture are you the original inspector?

No.

So when did the original I started the case over, so that is my original dates.

I don't I so the original case is closed out.

Uh yes, yes.

So I opened back up when I first started.

I I realized halfway through me taking over that it's probably more beneficial to do that.

Um, so that way I'm not getting confused with other inspectors things.

So we're almost done with all that now.

So on the the photograph showing the back to it.

Be in there, not being there.

How do we know it's 2019 on Google?

Oh, sure.

Um the current slide.

So in the original photo right here, it shows February 2029.

I'm moving to see the further date.

So my next one, this is just a zoom in of that same photo.

This one here shows May of 2023, and then the structure is there.

And that was generated by Google.

Yes.

Just for the sake of clarity, you originally said that the first photo was from when?

Uh February of 2019.

19.

Did I say so?

I might have to.

229.

I just went to the case.

I have way too much coffee today.

Well, make sure we're squeaky clean here.

So it's been there at least three years.

Yes, yes.

Yep.

It's not in the greatest condition.

I, you know, him taking it down is probably the best way so he could move forward with something that he would really like there.

So he can do it.

He just needs to get a permit.

Good.

Any other questions from the board?

Prefab, you don't need a permit.

As you don't need engineer plans, it does need to be permitted if it's over 100 square feet.

Okay.

Over 100 square.

Okay.

Things might change.

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.

May have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

All opposed?

Motion carries.

I have a second motion, please.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on number four June 29th.

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.

Yes.

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

I have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Yes.

Why four names?

Are there that many names on the owners?

That's every owner of that property.

Well, okay.

All right, moving on.

Number 3.8 on our agenda.

Continued for March 25th, 2026, case 61-26, fine respondents Carlos Swau and Michael Roy at 1303 Sunset Drive 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?

Gentlemen, please step forward.

Please state your name and address.

Hello.

Michael Roy, ROY.

1303 Sunset Drive, Clearwater.

Thank you, sir.

Sir, do you admit or deny the violation on the case?

No.

I'm sorry?

No.

Is that it?

You deny the violation?

No, it's a violation.

You're admitting the violation?

Yes.

Okay.

You say it that way.

I just want to understand.

I'm sorry when you said it that way.

I get you.

If you want to have a seat, we'll uh we'll hear from the inspector.

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

Would you step forward and give us your name and relation to the property?

Or involvement.

Tom Bellini at 308 Englman.

And I'm the neighbor.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

We're going to hear from the inspector, then we'll hear from you, gentlemen.

Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

All right, I'm Inspector Catries with the City of Clearwater.

This is going to be for 1303 Sunset Drive.

Case number 61-26.

This is going to be for what violations for permits required for the structure constructed to the rear of the primary residence, which is attached to the primary residence.

First notice was sent out June 2nd of 2025.

The final was July 25th of 2025, posted to the property July 25th of 2025.

This is going to be uh just west of North Osceola, pretty close to the water.

And this is the uh the structure that is uh that requires a permit.

This is just another angle.

The timestamp is on the bottom here, but it looks a little different from what I used today.

Just I'm sorry, can you can you use your cursor and show us where right here?

Uh this was April 4th of 2025 that I took the pictures is that's why I moved my timestamp to what I was used to using.

I'm I'm thinking in terms of where which structure because I'm gonna be able to do that.

So this structure here with the green with the green top is the one that we're here for today.

So I'll show you a better photo, which is right here.

This is the side view.

I got you.

It's all of this which is attached to the primary structure.

Thank you.

Um I have been in contact with the complainant as well as Mr.

Roy.

Um again, I try to work with everybody on let's take one step at a time.

Get a survey, we'll move from there.

All right, next step was the engineer plans.

Unfortunately, we fell short with the engineer plans.

Um so that is why I had to continue, especially if it's uh people that feel that they're being affected by the violation.

I have you know, to service both both sides of the parties.

So this is just a close-up of that property.

From the general that's growing over there's a lot of photos for this one because each time I went back to see what the progress, you know, if any progress was made.

Um, you know, because Mr.

Roy has he needs in order for him to get this permitted the or to get an engineer, he needed to cut to fix a few things that the engineer suggested, get fixed so it can be up to code.

An engineer is not going to stamp something if he knows that's not up to part.

So he was I but we I do need you know to move forward because I gave him quite some time.

Um I have to again service both both parties in the situation.

So he is getting it repaired so that way it could get permitted.

So compliance can be met by obtaining an issue permit and completing said permit, or requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 29, 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, Mr.

Roy.

What would you like to tell us about all this?

Hello.

Hi.

This is my first time dealing with something like this, and it's been a nightmare.

Sure.

Um first of all, we had a new roof put on in 2011, and we thought this was part the overhang after going through some personal issues.

The roofer who was no longer in business said that, oh, we will just work it into the existing permit with this addition back there.

So we thought this was all done.

And then when Kat came up and said this and pointed it out, it threw me back.

I was like, What?

It's not permitted.

And she went back and checked the uh microfish.

And so I said, Oh boy.

So I started going through and I went down to code enforcement, and they gave me a list of five names, and one of them said they had to do small jobs.

So I said, Well, let me work with this list.

And I just have not had any luck with this list.

From there's some that you can just call, and there's no, you can't leave a message.

There's some that you only take a uh a text from, and some that just didn't answer, and one said this was too small of a project, and it was just like, well, I can't get anybody to any engineers to take this up.

Um but I I found a handyman that said he knew one of the engineers, and so he said he took my handyman took pictures and he said the engineer is real busy, but he says you need to do this and that.

So I said, Well, that doesn't sound too unreasonable.

I took out four by fours and put in four by sixes and new concrete pads and all these things, trying to kind of get ahead of the thing, and but I can't apply for a permit until I have a survey which I have, but then I couldn't without the engineering plans, and I kept calling and leaving messages and emails, and people just aren't getting back me.

They're just saying they're just too busy.

And that's just ridiculous.

And we got up to uh where I thought I had an engineer, but I got duped on that.

He wasn't an engineer.

And so when I got into February, I'm like, man, uh what's going on?

And I one of the men on the list finally got back to me, and I sent him pictures of the draw boxes.

He didn't want to come out and look at it himself, and he said, Well, I'll look at it this weekend, and then call me Monday.

So I called him Monday, he didn't do it.

So he says, Oh, call me tomorrow at nine.

Call him at night.

He said, Oh, call me back at 9:30, and then crickets again.

So it's just been real frustrating on my part.

So I just started going through the book and talking to people.

So I didn't know it was civil engineering, I could do that.

But I did that, and uh everybody saw it's too small a project, too small, and then finally somebody said, Okay, and this is a group in Tampa Belts Engineering.

And they said, and this is the day before Easter, and they said, Well, we could take care of that.

So, have you worked with City of Clearwater before?

And they said, Yes.

I said, Okay, good.

So the week after, the guy comes out, takes pictures.

Um, he's not an engineer, but he said, Looks like might need some strapping or something, but everything else looks seems to be okay.

I said, Good.

I signed the contract the next day.

He told me two to four weeks.

And hurt me after calling and said, Hey, what's going on?

Give me an update.

And he's like, Oh, we're just real busy.

But he told me two to four weeks.

So May 1st, and he goes, Oh, yes, I forgot.

We've had some staff changes and this and that.

I said, Well, I have a code board meeting, and I'd like to be able to tell them that I'm applying for the permit.

He says, Okay, so finally I get a letter that says, Well, this is what we've done so far.

If you want to show them that, which is just like preliminary drawings, but they haven't done the engineering yet.

And the gentleman that came out and took the photos in March, it's no longer there.

So they have to come back.

And I've got a schedule, hopefully, for tomorrow to come out and take new pictures.

He said, As soon as he gets the new pictures, they can do the new engineering.

So I've I've paid up front for all of this, and I'm just it's kind of like out of my hands.

I'm waiting for them to give me the engineering drawings.

I got the survey, and I'm just waiting on that.

And once I get that, in which I need to figure out what I need to do to bring it up to compliance, because I want to keep the overhead, then I'll pay my handyman to do the work, and hopefully I'll won't be bothering you all anymore.

So that's where I am right now.

So it's Bell's Engineering in Tampa.

Right.

And they're seem to be keep sort of keeping in touch more and more now.

So gotcha.

So that's it.

Do you plan to pull the permit yourself or if they're uh paying them to do everything?

Because I don't know if you're not going to be able to pull the permits.

They're doing everything.

I told him I don't mind.

Gotcha.

You guys know how to do the permits.

So we're supposed to do all that.

But I really have an issue with the list of people.

It was it was nice to have lists, but if no one's going to respond, it's just really weird, you know.

All of us are that age.

We're like, you know, you call, somebody calls you, you at least call back and go, we're too busy, we can't do it.

Fine, great.

You know, it's just crazy.

It's been and there's a lot of other people that I've talked about they've just moved out of Clearwater.

They're like, is the permits, it's hard to get people to do the work, it's hard for people to get the permits.

They moved to Brooksville, they moved to Virginia.

I was like, I don't want to move.

I used to work for City Florida.

I like it here, but this is my first time having to deal with the permits, and this is just crazy.

And you know, Kat's been great keeping up with me and helping me, and I can see the frustration because time stepped by.

I'm like, oh crap, it's been you know six months.

Gotcha.

So thanks.

Do you think that uh sir?

Do you think that uh you can get that permit uh within the next uh 30 days or so?

I believe so because I got a letter from the engineer, he said we moved you to the top of the queue.

Guys should be out tomorrow.

If not tomorrow, it'll be uh June 3rd at 9 30.

Take photos, give it to the engineer, they'll do it all up and submit it.

So as soon as they submit it, and I know what kind of work I need, I do need to do any work if I need to do it, I'll have it done.

I'm not trying to not do it, it's just crazy how long it's taken uh understood apologize for that.

Understood.

Mr.

Roy, you have a signed contract now with the first time.

Yes, sir.

Somebody wouldn't and you will stay in contact with inspectors?

Yes.

She like she's been great, she's but I've been able to keep in touch with someone as soon as I get something, like hey, I got this, you know.

I've had several violations, and we've taken care of them.

I think within this is the first time where it's just really because of the drawing, engineer drawings, it's kind of been out of my hands and finding somebody to do such a small project is what's been the hold of.

Understood.

Board, do you have any other questions?

We have Mr.

Roy.

Don't forget the home.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Roy.

I do have a question.

I don't know if you can answer you.

Can you answer?

Is the roof have an approved permit?

Because you said you got the roof replaced, and you thought that that included the structure itself.

Um, so yes, the roof itself was permitted.

I did check the uh microfilm, but what what he stated he thought that was part of it was in fact not.

So what he's actually needs to get permitted is just the structure underneath the okay.

But the uh the roof would be part of that, would it not part of that structure because it was added along with that structure, but not under the um under the plans?

Under the uh roof permit.

Yes, it was not part of that roof permit.

Okay, so but the I think that answers the question that the roof has got to be part of this engineered set of drawings for this permit.

Correct.

If I'm if I'm thinking correctly, I don't want Mr.

Roy to get caught short here if if the uh if the roof was installed on an unpermitted structure, um, it might be worth looking at whether that when the roof were pulled a permit, did it include this additional structure and was that inspected and passed, and if not, then there is unpermitted roof.

Right.

No, the roof was definitely the roof was definitely permitted on the primary structure.

Okay.

This part, the addition to it was not part of that, though.

So then I I went, we had to go through the bowl to go get you know that to get that answer forhand.

So it was confirmed that it was not part of that original roofing permit that has passed inspections, so it's that was for the roof and what was on those plans, you know, on those drawings for the roofing permit, not for the addition.

Right.

And the point of clarification that I think we're trying to make is that in your engineering work, uh it would be incumbent to make sure the roof they're looking at the roof and that it is part of whatever they're doing, so that you don't get am I thinking correctly, just for clarification?

I think the roof passed whatever inspection.

So the roof technically doesn't need engineered drawings per this.

Right.

So it was permitted.

Okay, good.

So it's just underneath the roof.

So it's just from this point here where you see the this wood, and then all down this way.

Right this whole structure.

Eight foot by 20 foot.

That I understand.

I just for the point of clarification.

I didn't want us to end up back here with a situation where there's a there's a problem with the roof, but because it's the roof on the subject edition that we're discussing here, so that you know his engineer takes care of everything that they need to that's comprehensive and covers everything that concerns you.

Yes, sir.

All right, all right.

The the roofers initially told you the shed roof would be included.

It was included.

But it was a permitted.

It was no, I'm probably the the eight foot by twenty-foot extension.

We came up with because we had trees over the house and branches were falling, big branches, and we were afraid.

And I wasn't there, I was in the hospital with my dad in Tampa General, but uh my wife you know was tired of telling the guy, yeah, this just fell down, and he goes in the roofing uh guy said, Oh, we can should have that extension put on, and I have some extra green metal roofing we can put on there.

He says I can work that into the existing permit, was her understanding.

That's the point.

It wasn't we have it actually wasn't included in there, yes, right.

Let's unclarify here.

I think you said wasn't, and I think your understanding that it was, and I want to clarify this point because at the end of the day, I don't want you to be caught short and have a product that's not fully complete, fully permitted.

So it was we would we were doing you know, we were in a bad situation.

We weren't understanding the guy said how to work this into the existing permit, not knowing exactly what that meant.

We just know they did a good job and it was done, and we've had a uh inspection by citizens insurance back in um 2023.

Inspector came out, did the whole house inside out, passed everything, took pictures of the roof, said to look at the the overhang extension, no complaints.

He went up on top of it, looked at it.

So we didn't think it was a safety issue, but that we didn't so until it was brought up that it didn't have a permit, that's what threw us off.

I have a question.

Um so I know the roof has an inspection and it's it's good to go.

However, with the structure being part of the roof, would it with the work being done and removed, would it not impact the integrity of the roof?

And maybe we do need a permit just in case it does, just to I'm not an engineer, I can't speak to that.

I will pass your concern on to Belt Engineering.

Um, but I guess until they take new pictures and look at it and come up with what they because he says he knows what to do to bring it up to compliance.

So let me I don't know if that's part of what it will be.

I just I just want to make sure that it doesn't that the roof now is an issue because you're working on the bottom structure, and then it does miss, you know, it it impacts the struct the integrity of the roof itself.

So we're back in the same predicament of going having to have a permit for the roof.

So that's the reason for the engineer plans uh with it being attached to the primary structure, and the engineer comes out there, he's putting his name and his license on the line, he or she that this is a safe structure and the integrity is gonna hold.

So we I would like to leave that to the engineers when he submits the drawings and the and the plans.

All right, very good.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Sir, you have something you'd like to say?

The structure was there before they put on the new roof.

So the violation is the structure, not the roof.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Number two, Cat has given them the time zone, I don't recall 60 days to get a permit for an architect to make up plants.

60 days went by, Cat came back, extended their time.

They did nothing.

You've seen the pictures on how that looks.

None of you would like to live right next to that.

So on the next pass, she tagged it, redlined it.

Do you think that would stop and they would follow through and trying to get a permit?

The homeowner can pull a permit, but you need plans.

And not to be able to get an architect.

I just had a extension, a uh a garage put on my son's house.

They're out there, but you gotta pay five thousand dollars.

So the excuse of you can't find one, I don't know.

Did he show you the engineer that he that he hired to do the job?

But when we read when the county, when Kat red tagged it, they built another structure and attached it to that structure that doesn't have a permit.

So in defiance, they didn't give a damn, they just built it another structure, no permit.

So where do I benefit with looking out for both parties?

But it seems like the county is looking more for them.

Kat did a great job.

I can't say nothing bad.

She was the only inspector, and she was not the first one, but she was the only one that really cared to correct the problem.

So to hire a handyman that's not licensed to do that kind of repair.

How can you repair something that's not approved by an architect or an engineer?

This has been going on way past a year.

They built the next structure attached to that with um with fencing.

Fencing by the Florida building code is not approved.

It has to be plywood, half-inch, C DX, whatever you want to use.

But fencing is not an approved structural material.

If we get a hurricane, and there's this power there, no permit for power.

Again, if you look at the picture, who would want to live next to that?

And like I said, cat this is going on way past a year.

And whatever Kat says to them, they agree, and then they blow her away.

What is your relationship to Mr.

Roy?

I'm sorry.

What is your relationship to Mr.

Roy?

There is none.

I mean, are you a neighbor?

Yes, how close do you live to him?

Seven feet.

Okay.

My backyard is two foot wide.

I got big the windows on the side of my house, and you just look at this every day.

The value of my house is getting worse and worse because of this.

And for them to build another structure when the property or the unpermanent structure is complete in defiance, and to me, they didn't give a damn.

They're just going to do what they want to do.

He's got 29 violations against them.

They just were forced to take down a rotten fence.

They used to have that purple thing.

That's a sheet.

But how can you build?

I've been in commercial construction 60 years.

Not too much I don't know about.

And we do million dollars to 20 million.

We're doing the airport now.

So for him to say he can't find it, that's not an excuse.

I don't have the money.

Well, they took us a small claims court over a tree.

They lost.

They took us back to small claims cost.

They lost.

They took my neighbor to small claims cost.

Well, she counted whatever she she did, and they lost.

They lost $8,000.

So for you not to see he has the paperwork.

I can tell you I have the paperwork.

But there's no proof that he has the paperwork.

And like I said, this they go on what I lived there for eight years.

There used to be a no structure on on the side.

Cat got them to take down that.

There was another structure on the other side of the house or called for.

Luckily, Cat has been in charge.

She got them to take that down.

So excuses over a year.

It's time to say if they were going to do something and pull a permit, it would have been done by now.

But show us something in good faith.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate that.

It's our it's our job to you know to uh take the process forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

Did we do the first motion on this?

Does anybody recall?

Okay.

Okay.

Are you aware of all the violations and the permit you requested is for all those violations, or just yes, but like I explained to both parties today?

We're here to speak about this violation.

Has he come in complaints with previous violations?

Yes, but the focus is on this violation for the structure and the structure alone.

Everything else is irrelevant today.

That's correct.

All right.

Mr.

Craig.

Mr.

Roy, you had something else you wanted to say?

Briefly, please.

Okay.

Um I have a copy if you if you want of the engineering, I can give that to you.

If that would help you.

Anyone?

Anyone care to see that or you ready to move forward?

I have an extra copy.

I can give it to you.

Chad, have you seen it?

Oh, you've seen the contract, Chad?

Okay.

All right.

Let's get it on the record then.

So I was not.

Oh, we'll be able to see it.

Okay.

So that's your contract with Belt Engineering?

Yes.

All right.

Okay.

And uh fair enough.

I paid the money for that, and I can give you that.

All right.

Um sorry, cover anything pertinent you'd care to add.

Anything pertinent you'd care to add.

Oh I'm gonna do like Kat and just keep it to the overhang.

So a lot of what he said was not true, but I'm not gonna go with that.

Um if you if you need it, I'll just read you what the engineer said to me yesterday.

We are busy and are working diligently to complete your project now that it has come into our queue.

It shouldn't take long now to complete it.

Considering that it's been so long since the initial inspection, we need to come back out and click some more field data and ensure that your plants actually represent the built condition of the structure.

Okay, so that will meet compliance.

Very good.

Thank you, sir.

It is a motion.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

Madam Chairman, would we do a first motion on this case?

I don't think so.

No.

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'll second it.

All right.

I have a uh uh all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

May have a second motion, please.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before June 29th.

Yeah.

If the respondent does not apply 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, fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such liens.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you, Inspector Reese.

Next on our agenda number 3.9 continued for March 25th, 2026, case 62-26, fine respondents.

Petrollo Philip Benjamin, trustee, and BG Land Trust at 202 North Glenwood Avenue in violation of code for permits.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Okay, Inspector Cat Reese with the City of Clearwater.

This is for 202 North Glenwood Avenue.

This is for case 62-26.

It's gonna be for one violation, permits required specifically for the white vinyl fence installed on the property.

First notice, this is an old case as well, was sent July 20th of 2023.

The final was sent December 17th of 2025.

Certified mail was signed as July 27th of 2023.

I've also posted on the property for good measure since the uh that green card was signed so long ago.

So this was the property uh July of 2019, as you could see here, uh right down here.

And this is a uh my inspection photo took that I took December 2025.

That shows defense on the property.

Looks very nice, just needs permit.

Um so the I apologize, I was gonna highlight them, but right here.

Uh yes, I see it.

BCP 2023 090523 is a voided permit for the white vinyl fence.

So that is why we're here today.

They don't have a completed permit.

Um so this here is just an uh again, here's the permit itself and the void.

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

Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on a before June 29th, 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.

So the um I have questions or doesn't mind so they obtained permit, then the permit was voided.

That is correct, because um they they did not follow through with inspections, so the permit expires, or it may have been voided for another reason.

I honestly didn't look into as to why this time.

I apologize.

Um but usually if it's if I didn't attach like a void letter, that is because it just voided out over time from not doing it's been just sitting so long.

So we don't know who pulled the permit, whether it was the homeowner or the uh or a contractor.

I would know that if I could get in a cell up, but well, that's okay.

Um it's not that important.

I just it's a bit of a mystery.

Um so it's uh it does show the contact up here, which is Hugh Hemley.

Um that is not the property owner, so I would imagine it was a contractor.

Okay.

All right.

Is there a reason we haven't heard of this before three years later or so?

I started it on a I can't I couldn't answer that.

Um everything I took over was just a list on a piece of paper and going through a cella and taking over the cases as I was going down the list.

Yeah.

Congratulations.

All right.

Any other questions?

Yeah.

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

Second.

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 violations on or before June 29th.

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 select or settle such gain.

May have a second.

Sorry.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Very good.

Thank you, Inspection.

Moving on on our agenda number three dot 10, continued from March 25th, 2026, case 63-26, fine respondents Patrillo, Philip Benjamin Trust, and BG Land Trust at 2020 Glenwood Avenue in violation of code for permits.

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

Same address, huh?

Thank you.

Yes.

So again, Inspector Cat Reese, this is also going to be for 202 North Glenwood Avenue for case number 63-26.

This is going to be for uh one violation for permits required specifically for the windows and doors installed.

Um it did have a permit, it just was voided as well.

So we'll get into that.

Uh first notice of violation was sent July 20th of 2023, final December 8th of 2025.

Posted uh certified mail was signed July 27th of 2023.

This is the property uh same one.

Same house.

So this is the windows uh in July of 2019 on the property.

So this is just take a look at that photo, and this is the photos for February of 2025.

Now is that all the windows or just in the middle of it?

It is all of the um the windows based off of the uh the permit that was applied for.

Okay.

So again, so this is the permit uh right here.

I believe it's this one.

I can't see with my glasses on.

Uh yes, so it's I'll show this was a list of the property, everything on the property.

I'll show you the the next slide so you can read better.

So here is BCP 2023 090525, and this is a voided permit as of September 19 of 2023.

It does show um it was voided.

Uh it was just awaiting plans and it just went stale.

So that is why they were voided.

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

Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on a before June 29, 2026, and 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.

All right, thank you.

Ford, do you have any questions?

I have a question.

Why why was this uh why is this a separate just for my own sake of curiosity?

Why is this a separate case from the offense has to be its own permit?

Okay, so each violation would be on its own stop work order after the fact, so that way if they do come in compliance with one, you're able to continue on with the other one that they did not.

Makes sense to me.

May I have a first motion, please?

Was it the same contractor?

Just out of curiosity.

Yes.

Thank you.

That's interesting.

All right.

No 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.

I have a second.

Second.

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 June 29th, 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 a collect or settle such lien.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

The motion carries.

For Madam Secretary's request, our next case.

Uh she has asked for a motion to continue this case until this says 624, but um you want but uh we've been using a date of 629.

Does that mean anything or no?

No, you've just been using that for compliance date.

Okay, that's what I thought.

Just wanted to be clear.

All right.

Can I have a motion to continue this case, please?

I'm to find the respondent in violation of the goal.

No, maybe stop you.

This is we're not looking for a declaration of violation.

What we're looking to do is we're gonna she's requested that we postpone this and move it to our next meeting.

So somebody's gonna have to make up a motion to do that.

I make a motion to move it to June 24th meeting.

I have a second.

Second, all in favor?

Aye.

Motion carries.

We're gonna do the same thing on the next case.

I would like a motion to continue case six five-26 until June 24th, please.

I make a motion to move this case to June 24th.

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye aye.

All opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 3.13 on our agenda has been withdrawn.

Item 3.14 continued from April 22nd, 2026, case 80-26.

Fine respondents Andres Perez and Zoila Perez at 2021 North Betty Lane 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?

Uh Chair, my apologies.

This um case as well will be continued to the June meeting.

We I need to schedule an interpreter or translator rather for the um respondent for this case.

So it's being continued.

So I get a motion.

May I have a motion to continue this case?

I make a motion to continue this case to June 24th.

Sir, all in favor?

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

Moving on, number 3.15 on our agenda, case 93-26.

Find respondents Adam and Dana McGrady at 104 North Media Meteor Avenue.

In violation of code for parking lot services, an issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine and compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

No.

Inspector Sudeth, you have the floor.

Uh Vicki Suddith with the City of Clearwater.

This is for case 93-26 at 104 North Meteor Avenue.

There is one violation here, Code Section 3-1502 K4 for parking lot surfaces.

Notice the violation was sent on November 24th of 2025 with the compliance date of December 24th of 2025.

I did not receive the green card, but the property was posted on 331, 2026.

This was a complaint came in that the neighbors stated that every time they pull in the driveway, it vibrates the ground and makes a loud noise.

So there was a picture of the driveway back in November.

This was the posting because they did not receive the green card.

This is a posting for today's hearing.

This was the driveway the day that I posted for the hearing on May 14th.

And then this was the driveway this morning.

Compliance can be met for the driveway by repairing and or replacing the crack and heap driveway.

Requesting compliance on or before June 27th of 2026 or a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation of the compliance is not met.

Thank you.

Um in the beginning I did last year.

He told me that he was going through a divorce and that he really couldn't afford to do anything, so I extended him two months to do what he needed to do.

Then he reached out to me again and said that he was going to be contacting some contractors and would have a contract signed by the end of the week.

I didn't hear anything from him.

I did call him two weeks ago, and he told me that he was trying to pull the permit, but he was having problems.

Um something about a tree that's on the property.

Um but he did tell me he was going to reach out to the permitting department to see what he could do, and he would call me back, and I've not heard nothing from him.

And I told him if I did not, I'd be moving forward with the case.

So here we are.

Very good.

Thank you.

Questions from the board?

And I have a first motion.

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

And I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

I have a second motion closed.

Move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct violations on or before June 27, 2026.

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

Each violation continues to exist.

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

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Next on our agenda number 3.16, case 94-26.

Find respondents Brenda and Jessica Smith at 107 South Aurora Avenue.

In violation of code for residential grass parking and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Sir, would you come forward, please?

Sir, can you state your name and address for the record?

That's Brandon Smith, 107 South Aurora Avenue.

Thank you, sir.

Sir, do you admit or deny the violation?

I'm not too clear on what the violation is.

I know grass parking was mentioned of it, but I wasn't too clear on what it was that I violated.

Um there was uh vehicle that was parked there for maybe I'd say a year or two.

Um I sold it, but that was a few months ago.

And there hasn't been a vehicle parked there since, so I'm not sure what the actual complaint is.

They will take that as deny.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, then okay.

Very good, sir.

If you want to have a seat, we'll hear from the inspector, then have you address this again.

Thank you.

Can you speak into the microphone this time?

Maybe it's because I'm short.

I can't hear you.

It's certainly not because you're shy.

Uh Vicky Sudeth with the City of Clearwater Code Compliance Inspector.

This is for case 94-26 at 107 South Aurora.

There is one violation there for code section 3-1407A5 for residential grass parking.

The notice violation was sent on 1030 of 2025 with the compliance date of November 20th of 2025.

Certified mail receipt was signed, and I received it on November 18th, 2025.

This picture was taken back last year when the case first came about.

You can't really see it very good in this picture, but there is a car parked right there, but behind it is also a boat.

Uh then there is this picture.

The car had been removed, and now there is just a boat there, and there's also something else to the left of it.

Then on April 9th of 2026, there are now three boats parked in the grass, but no car.

And here is a picture of the boat in the car again.

And here's a picture of two cars and three boats.

This is I'm looking at your dates here.

This is last year.

These were from when the case first started.

Okay, thank you.

25.

And then this was on May 11th when I posted the property for today's hearing.

There's still three boats parked on the grass.

Um that's the posting for today's hearing.

Again, there's three boats.

And then this was this morning.

There's still three boats sitting in the grass.

I did speak to a lady there.

I did reach out to them, and uh, I did go over the violation with her.

She did say that there was a car there that did not have a tag on it, which I didn't know it because it was backed in.

But she did say that it was going to be sold and asked me, could I give her some more time?

So I did give her another month.

I also explained to her that if she's gonna have the boats parked on the property, that there has to be a fence there.

You can't just have all that parked on the grass, and you would have to have a permitted parking surface.

Um, she said that she understood that was at the end of last year.

Um, I have not heard anything since.

So compliance can be met for the residential grass parking by having only one parking space on the grass, and it must be parallel and adjacent to the driveway.

Um requesting compliance on or before June 6th.

I know that is a short time, but they've had several several months to get those stuff off the grass or a fine of 150 dollars per day if the bio if compliance is not met.

Thank you.

Umspector we call Mr.

Smithbeck up.

Mr.

Smith.

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Um what would you like to tell us about this?

Well, I guess I just had some misunderstanding on I guess what the ruling is with it.

Uh I saw under was it point five as far as what I violated that there was a special exceptions about boats uh parked uh parallel, but on the offset of the house, which is where my boats are parked, as long as they are under 20 feet, and all of my boats are under 20 feet.

Uh there's two lasers that are like 10 feet and then one 16-foot C ray.

Uh I didn't know that there was a violation for not having a fence hiding it.

Uh, if that be the case, I can make that go.

But I didn't know what part of it I violated other than having the car parked there, but I don't park cars there anymore.

It's all the photos.

All right.

So I'll have I've got a question for the inspector.

Inspector, can you like this enlighten us as to what the specific violation is there?

The boats with the is the boats being parked on the grass.

You it's not that he can't have the boats there, but if you're gonna park a boat on the side of your house, it has to be behind the fence, and you have to have a permitted parking surface.

He doesn't have either, which is what I explained to the woman who said that she was the home property owner, and I spoke to her.

I told her if she wanted to have the boats there, she would have to have a permitted parking surface, and she would need to put the fence up.

Okay.

And anything since.

Do you have a name of the of the person you spoke with?

I might.

Um on January 16th at 10 oh nine a.m.

I spoke to the property owner, a woman by the name of Jessica, and she asked to have an extension to March.

I explained to her that all she had to do was move the car to the driveway.

She did not want to do that.

She wants to sell it.

I told her the most I could do was give her till the end of the month as it was a very easy fix.

I also had gone over the uh violation with the the boats being parked there.

And that was the last time I spoke to her was on January 16th.

January 16th.

And her name was Jessica.

Okay.

And it shows that she is one of the property owners at the address.

Inspector, can any cars be parked on the grass next to the driveway at all?

Just one.

Still just one.

I know someone had pictures there.

There was three.

There's been times when there's been more than three parked in the grass.

Party parking, I'll admit those.

Okay.

Mr.

Smith, does that help you help clear up your understanding of the violation?

Uh to very minute degree.

As the violation about the car or the boats.

It's all grass parking because you have to park.

I just microphone place so we can it's all it's all a violation because the boats are parked on the grass and there is no fence to hide the fact that the boats are there if you want the boats in the backyard.

You can only have one thing parked on the grass parallel and adjacent to the driveway, whether it's a boat under 20 feet or a vehicle or a motorcycle or whatever.

You can only have one.

Okay.

Behind that fence, there has to be a surface for the boat.

You have to have a permitted parking surface.

Yes.

And you do need a permit to get that.

Are there any regulations?

I'm sorry.

The way that I read it is that it was long as it was a mailing.

Well, maintain the grass area.

That's for the grass parking.

If you're going to utilize your one grass parking spot that you get directly next to the driveway, you have to maintain that as grass.

You cannot allow it to get worn out.

That doesn't count for the backyard.

No, because if you are going to park the boat in the backyard, you have to have a permitted parking surface, which would mean you would not be tearing up the grass.

You can only have concrete papers or asphalt.

Which by law is I'm sorry.

Which one is that?

Yes, if I may if you could you could put that on the overhead there, and then you can show the board what you're referring to.

So number six says parking on unpaved area prohibited.

No parking, displaying or storing of vehicles, trailers, and or boats shall be permitted on any grass surface or other unpaved area zone for any use unless specifically authorized.

And where the what is this document?

This is part of the ordinance.

This is a city ordinance.

Yes, it is.

I think it's it is 3-1407 for parking restrictions and residential areas, and it is number six.

There was just an exception.

A six.

Thank you.

I thought the violation was commercial vehicles during the actual performance of a service at the premises where the vehicle is parked, loading, unloading, or cleaning of vehicles, but not including semi-trailers, trucks, or caps, provided such activity is fully completed within 24 hours.

And provided such activity does not occur at the same location one and two times per month.

That's the exception.

I have a question.

So it answered your question.

Yeah.

Do you need to see more of this?

Yeah, I'm just reading this last slide.

You want me to move it out?

Yeah.

I can't see that.

Hold on.

You're good right there.

That's good.

How's that?

Okay, you got it.

Okay.

As of today, is there any violations still in existence?

Yeah, the picture that I showed you of this morning.

All three boats are still parked on the grass.

Okay.

Mr.

Smith, you're sorry.

Mr.

Smith, you um have you spoken with the inspector before today about this stuff?

No, I have not.

Okay.

Very good.

The board have any other questions.

All right.

I guess we need to find out, like, so you know what you need to do to correct this.

I don't.

It looks like you need to put up a fence and put some kind of surface down to put your boats on top of concrete or pavements.

We'd recommend that you speak with the inspector and or the building department as far as what's actually required to uh get this satisfied.

Even for the smaller votes, I would still need you're going to park anything on the ground.

You can only have one thing.

If you want to keep the boats there, you have to put up a fence and you have to have a permitted parking surface.

And that counts for the backyard too.

That is only for the backyard that requires a permitted surface.

Okay.

And again, those are those are issues to sort out with the uh sorry, I'm going to step on you there.

If you wanted to move one of them out directly next to the driveway in the grass, you could do that as long as they have current tags on the trailers.

Okay.

But only one.

So again, I would suggest you discuss discuss your, you know, get an understanding with the code enforcement officer, talk to the building department, get an understanding of what it is you need to do to get in compliance there.

That's right.

Okay.

All right.

Do we have any other questions?

No.

I guess how long do you think it'll take you to do that?

Uh to put a fence and I'm honestly gonna sell the votes then.

I'm not gonna put a paper down.

I'd rather sell them and make money.

So maybe two months.

Okay.

August.

August.

August 6th or July.

July.

July.

Inspector, do you have any thoughts about setting a date further down the road other than it's entirely up to you guys?

I I told you what I thought.

They passed since last year.

I've spoken to the wife, she knew what needed to be done, and here we are.

Okay, and when did this uh when did this case first start?

25.

The first notice was sent out to them on October 30th of 2025.

So it's been about uh seven months, seven, eight months, something like that.

Nine months.

Going on about eight months.

Okay.

Okay.

Um the board on the on setting a timeline.

I'm okay with the extension.

I think we should do July and give them two months to sell the votes.

That's what he wants to do.

Somebody give me a motion.

I put in a motion to extend this uh to July.

It's gonna be the first one.

Let's uh we're gonna first violate.

Initially, we need to do the first violation.

I'm sorry.

Give me the first violation motion if you will.

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

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

I have a second motion, please.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before July 6th of 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 product or settle such lien.

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

All right.

All opposed.

The motion passes.

Sir, please get with your inspector and building department.

And they can get with the your inspector and the building department, and they'll help you get it resolved.

Thank you.

All right.

We are coming up on an hour and a half of meeting.

Does anybody need to take a break or shall we continue?

I'm trying to continue.

You want to break?

No.

All right.

Continue.

Somebody somebody.

Are you sure?

Somebody flag me if you want to take a break.

Um we can just actually break.

Um pardon?

We can it's been determined.

We can just walk out of it.

Yes, you can leave.

Thank you.

I'm sure the clerk can, but you guys can't.

All right.

Moving on, number 3.19 on our agenda has been withdrawn.

Number 3.20, case 98.

318.

I think for Missy Anthony.

Thank you.

Maybe I need a break.

Agenda item 3.18, case 96-26.

Find respondents ARCA Holmes LLC of 1465 San Juan Court in violation of code for exterior services and windows maintenance.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Inspector, you have the floor.

Hello again.

Vicky Sutter with the City of Clearwater Code Inspector.

This is for case 96-26 for 1465 San Juan Court.

There are two violations at this property.

Code Section 3-1502 C1 and C3 for door and window maintenance, and Code Section 3-1502B for exterior surfaces.

The notice of violation was sent on January 15th of 2026 with the compliance date of February 15th, 2026.

I did not receive the green card, so the property was posted on March 21st of 2026.

I did bring this property already for the overgrowth, which has been taken care of, so just kind of disregard the overgrowth.

This is for the exterior surfaces and the broken windows.

This is a picture of the soffit falling down that window behind it.

It's kind of hard to see in this picture, but it's broken.

There's a lot of peeling paint, vines growing, trees growing out of the eaves.

There's a closer up picture of the broken window.

The gutters are falling down off the top of the roof and off the wall.

This was a posting for they didn't receive the green card.

And then this was a posting for today's hearing.

And then these were taken this morning where the socket's still falling down, the windows still broke, the vines are still growing and the peeling paint is still everywhere.

Compliance could be met for the exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structural and decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, a faded peeling paint, and compliance can be met for the door and windows by replacing all broken windows and removing any boards.

Requesting compliance on or before June 27th of 2026, or a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation of compliance is not met.

Might I surmise that this house is unoccupied?

Um it is not occupied at the time.

At this time it's not.

You could have seen it in one of the pictures.

There was an extra posting there.

Um it was actually going up for auction in February because the taxes have not been paid on it, and the owner did come in and pay the taxes on the day of the deadline.

Um, but I have not had any contact with him.

I've called him, I've left several messages, and I've also tried to email him, and I've gotten a response.

No contact whatsoever.

All right.

No, 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.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

We have a second motion, please.

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

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

Each violation continues to exist.

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

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector.

Inspector Casman.

Hello there.

Our next uh item 3.20, case 98-26.

Fine respondents, Laura Long.

It's 1786 Marty Avenue in violation of code for fences and walls.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

No.

Inspector Casman, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, board.

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

This is case number 98-26 for 1786 Mary Avenue.

There's two violations here for Code Section 3-1502, G123 for exterior storage, code section 3-808A 1 through 6 for fence maintenance.

These are the dates the notice of violation went out with compliance state.

Did get a certified mail receipt back.

They didn't post the property for today's hearing.

This is 1786 Murray.

On the left side of the home, and I'll have better photos in the future.

There's a fence panel that's fallen over on its face on that side of the home.

And on the other side of the home, if you look to the right there, you notice there's some damaged fence with a lot of materials being stored outdoors, a lot of construction materials, buckets, bins in the front of the home as well.

There's a bunch of bins and buckets and a mini fridge being stored outdoors.

I have spoken with the owners of the property.

It seems like they might be going through some tough times.

There's a foreclosure activity happening on the property.

There was some other things.

There were two destroyed carports, canvas car ports in the driveway, which they did remove.

They had also had items under them, but they didn't finish up with everything else.

So this was after the compliance date.

This is a better photo of the front.

You can see there's some materials sitting by the door, and there's also more bins and boxes.

This is a better photo of that the fence panel just laying down right in front of the fence.

And again, on the side there, the fence is damaged, and they're storing a bunch of buckets and construction materials outdoors.

This is the notice of hearing for today's hearing.

And then when I went by this morning, it was uh more the same.

This is a better look at all that stuff just sitting out front, and then on the side there.

So compliance met for the exterior storage by removing from the grounds the property, all items not meant for outdoor use, such as bins, boxes, construction materials, mini fridge, and other miscellaneous items.

Compliance being met for the fence maintenance by repairing existing fence or removing it, repair means ensuring it is upright, panels are securely attached and missing slats are replaced.

And requesting compliance are before June 27th, 2026, or a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation for each data violations containing to assess.

Thank you.

Questions from the board?

No.

Okay.

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.

May have a second.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

We have a second motion, please.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct to correct the violations on or before June 27th of 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 each violation continues to exist.

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

I have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much for it.

Thank you, Inspector.

Moving on.

Agenda item 3.21, case 99-26.

Find respondents Renzi Dalip and 808 Normandy Road in violation of code for development code violation.

Shed.

And issue an order with a compliance deadline is fine.

If compliance is not met.

Inspector Jensen, we have the floor.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

No.

Inspector, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, board.

Thank you, Inspector Casman.

Uh, we're gonna work from here, I guess.

Um this is uh 808 Normandy, Dave Jensen code inspector for City of Clearwater case number 99-26.

See if I can get this there.

We go up to where it was.

This is going to be uh for a zoning violation.

Uh there is a accessory structure has been placed in front of the residents uh between the residents and the right-of-way.

Uh it's one violation under the 1-104, which is the zoning which covers the 3-203 that does not allow any accessory structures between the primary building and the right-of-way.

These are the dates of the uh notice of violation.

The uh return mail was received, signed.

I did speak to the owner back in February about it.

He told me that uh he has renters in there that he was trying to evict, so I gave him some extra time hoping he could get it taken care of.

Um he stated they were the ones that put the shed out there.

Uh the shed was posted with a notice so that both the owner and the uh the renters would be able to see it.

This is where the shed started out at.

There you go.

This is where the shed started out at.

Uh the neighbor complained because they did at one point have it shoved up into the uh shrubs.

The property line is about right where the shed was setting uh when I originally went to look at it.

This is the date uh that I went out to look at it originally as well, and uh posting to put on it, uh let them know that it was in violation.

This is after the compliance date.

This is uh on 521, well after the compliance date.

Uh they had moved it from where it was at, uh turned it sideways and just placed it in a different spot, which uh does not alleviate uh the violation.

And then this was this morning, nothing's changed with it, uh it's not been corrected.

So compliance we met by removing the shed from between the right-of-way and the fundamental principal structure.

I am requesting compliance on it before 617 and 26 or a fine of 150 dollars per day for each day the violation exists.

Thank you.

Board, do you have any 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.

I have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

May have a second motion, please.

Can we move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before June 27, 2026?

If the respondent is sorry, it's says June 17th on the order.

Thank you, Chelsea.

You're very sharp people here.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on before June 17th, 2026.

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

Each violation continues to exist.

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

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next on our agenda item 3.22 case 100-26.

Fine respondents Cody Root at 519 Florida Avenue in violation of code for short-term rental and residential rental business tax receipts.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Inspector Stevens, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, board.

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

Again, this is case number 100-26 regarding 519 Florida Avenue.

We have two violations here for code section 1-104 and 3-919.

We use that together for the illegal short-term rental violation.

And then Code Section 3-2302 for not having a residential rental business tax receipt, which is required.

There we go.

Originally was mailed out on March the 3rd of this year.

I got it returned to sender.

They refused to accept it on March the 23rd.

So I researched the property again, made sure it was still in violation, and actually went out and posted the property on March 23rd with a compliance date of March 30th.

There's the posting actually out on the property.

This is a picture of 519 Florida Avenue from Google Maps, and it's kind of hard to see.

But I did a little circle up here.

There's a column up there that's got 519, uh, very large on there that you'll see in the posting where they had it on uh Airbnb.

Uh but this is actually a duplex property, it has uh two units within it.

Uh, this is the Airbnb posting.

Uh this was from March the third, and I was able to select as low as two days to reserve the property, and for our code, you cannot do anything less than 31 calendar days or one calendar month.

Um this was pictures from that posting as well, showing that it is the exact same property again.

The post there with uh 519 up here uh in the one corner, and then also down over here.

Uh this is a screenshot from our seller program where if you had a business tax receipt, if you applied for it and then approved or whatnot, it would show up in this system, and the last BTR that was actually from this property was in 2012 for a rental, and it went out of business.

The property has changed ownership since uh then, and obviously we need a new business tax receipt.

Um this is the actual same listing on uh March the 23rd when I went back and verified it that it was still in violation again.

I could get it for as little as two days.

Uh and in double checking the system, we still there's no pending BTR application.

Um fast forward all the way to March 31st.

So this was after the compliance date.

Um the property, the original Airbnb listing have been deleted.

Since this is a duplex, it has 519 and 521 in it.

So I ended up finding this listing in there, so it had an appearance like it went into compliance, but as you can see, the hosting person down here I have circled in red, it's the exact same person that was hosted on um 521 and 519 with a minimum two night stay.

Again, the BTR again does not match.

Uh, there's not a BTR for 521 either.

I double check that.

Uh and again, this is that secondary unit right here.

So you can see the 521 that's up here in the corner, hosted by Cody, two-night minimum stay, and when you even look through uh Google Maps, you can see here that's the 519 that I was talking about, but circled is 521 with an arrow to the side, and you can barely see it.

And if you've ever played with Google Maps at all, it's kind of hard sometimes to get exact angles to look at things.

I was able to get it to scroll a little bit, and you can actually see the 521 that is there for that duplex.

Again, double checking that BTR, there was not one for 519, nor is there one for 521.

There was one back in looks like 2004 again for a duplex, but again, it is out of business, so it does not apply.

So compliance can be met for the illegal short-term rental by changing any rental listing on any website or platform such as Airbnb, BRBO, booking.com, etc., to a minimum of 31 days or one calendar to month, or they can delete the listing altogether.

Um if they want to rent the property on a yearly basis, they can do that, or even a monthly basis, but they're just going to have to comply with what the code says.

Compliance can be met for the residential rental business tax receipt by obtaining that residential rental business tax receipt or stop leasing the property period, and then they would not be required to have it.

So my recommendations for the case for the illegal short-term rental and the residential rental business tax receipt is a requesting compliance by June 6th of this year, or a fine of 150 dollars a day for the illegal short-term rental, and then a fine of $50 a day for the residential rental business tax receipt for each day that those violations continue to exist.

So we're dealing with two separate uh violations here, correct?

That is correct.

Madam Secretary, I believe that would be two separate orders and findings.

Maybe that's an I mean two separate uh we can do it as well.

Declaration is one.

Uh so we just combine, we stipulate the specific fines in our second order.

That would be correct.

Okay, very good.

Um questions for the inspector.

I guess my question is these are so it's four technically violations because it's two on each one, or it's one for the whole building.

It's just for the whole property.

Okay, our violations go by the property.

Okay, thank you.

Even though they have separate listings on the Airbnb as separate addresses, you're bringing this as one.

That's correct, is it's for that parcel.

Okay, we go by property.

Okay.

Well, that answers that.

Thank you.

Makes it a lot simpler.

All right.

Any contact from the uh owner at all?

No, none at all.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

You guys are all compliant.

No, all right.

We have a first motion then.

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

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

I have a second motion detailing the two separate fines distinctly, please.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation honor before June 6, 2026.

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

Is it uh 150 dollars a day 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.

All right.

What I'm looking to do is there's two violations.

One is fined at 150, the other is fined at 50.

So I'm almost thinking we could use his wording there in our in our motion to specifically detail uh the fine of 150 a day for the illegal short-term rental and a fine of 50 for the residential rental business tax receipt.

Okay, if the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of 150 dollars a day for the illegal short-term rental violation and a fine of $50 a day for the residential rental business tax receipt violation.

Uh 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 substance.

Second all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, board.

Thank you, sir.

Item 3.23 is uh withdrawn.

3.24 is withdrawn.

Next case is 3.25, case 103-26.

Fine respondents, Michael Plunkett at 205 South San Remo Avenue in violation for code of code for unsafe building.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

Inspector Larson, you have the floor.

Afternoon, board.

My name is James Larson, inspector for City of Clearwater.

This case is on 205 South C and Ramo Avenue.

Case number 103-26.

We have one violation, property maintenance requirements, minimum building and fire code requirements.

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

Section 3-1503 is nuisances, the existence of any of the following specific conditions.

Buildings which are abandoned, boarded up, partially destroyed, uh left for a period of three months in a state of partial construction.

This is an abandoned property.

Notice of violation 310 2026.

Appliance date 27 days after the receipt.

Certified mail returned on sign 327 property posted 41 of this year.

Notice of hearing posted 414, notice of hearing abandoned derelict home previous case.

This had a previous case unsafe 2015-00027.

It was found in violation on 226, 2020.

The code board gave the city authorization to enter onto the property and correct the violation as needed.

Time has passed.

We are now seeking to update the authorization to correct the long-standing violation.

Here's where the property is.

Again, this is the side.

The roof is a shamble.

Really?

Kind of looks like a debris field.

These are inside the property through broken windows.

And this was yesterday.

There's been no change.

For compliance to be met, complete restoration to meet minimum code requirements or demolish the remaining structure.

That would be a good candidate for that.

Yes, sir.

That's why we're here today.

Recommendation for case number 103-26.

The structure is not in compliance by June 27, 2026.

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

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

After three months from the recording date of such lien, if the fines and fees remain unpaid, the city attorney's office is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien using any legal or equitable remedies available under the law.

All right, so I have a question, and I don't know who it's for.

You agree both.

Since this has been going on since 2020, why do we even have to give a compliance date?

Well, so we have we have an old order, and we brought it back because we are specifically asking for a authority for the city to enter and demolish and remove all the debris and completely clean the property.

So because we're seeking that elevated remedy, we we thought it best to come back.

Um essentially, if the city does carry out the demolition and bring the property into compliance, the old order with the fines running would then those fines would then stop the day that the city brings the property into compliance, but we also would would seek to recoup the costs of demolition and abatement and all that.

So because the order is been out there for a while.

So because the order is been out there for a while, we we felt that it was safe and prudent to bring it to the board, have another hearing on it, and make clear um that we're seeking this elevated remedy of demolition.

Okay.

You're so we already did an order on here.

You had the right to do a lien, which you've already done, but you also can foreclose.

Why aren't you taking that action then?

Um believe we looked at this one, and there may have been some homestead claim um to it.

Um obviously you know there may not be some legitimacy to that claim.

We our practice in the past has been because the property appraiser uh makes the determination of homestead, not the city, and our practice has always been to uh stay out of that.

Um we when we look for cases to refer to foreclosure, um, if they we see that they're homestead, we we typically uh remove them from our list.

We don't um recommend them for for foreclosure.

Um that's not to say that we couldn't attempt to foreclose and then claim that um or try to argue that this is not a legitimate homestead, that it's a a fraud, uh fraudulent claim of homestead.

Um this is one situation where um we will actually we will discuss that internally, make a decision.

That is something that would be taken to the city council uh for consideration before it it's actually pursued.

Um but we are we are we have been discussing that in internally or generally our the just to give a little clarification for some of the newer members.

Chapter 162 specifically says that we cannot foreclose a code enforcement lien against homesteaded property, so um it's uh sort of an immunity of uh against these liens.

Um, and so we don't typically try to challenge that.

Um, but this this could be an example case where we may actually consider challenging that.

Did I say something incorrect?

Our building official, our esteemed building official.

Uh Gavin Garriott of building department.

Why did you think you said something wrong?

I just wanted to point out to the board that the um I think the foreclosure is secondary to the to the fact of getting that property cleaned up and made safe.

Right, it's open to the world basically.

Um that's the foremost thing that we are uh trying to do now, and whether we foreclose or not, that that is secondary in nature.

I mean, once you remove the house, doesn't that remove homestead?

You can't live in nothing.

Well, the the the way the court the courts interpret so homestead is a constitutional uh right that people have, and courts interpret it very favorably in favor of the property owner.

And so if the property owner has an intent um to make the property their homestead even, there's been cases where that intent alone was enough to assert a homestead protection.

So because it's such a strong protection, it's uh and it's a constitutional right, it's something that typically the city does we we do not attempt to interfere with that or challenge that.

Um obviously there are cases where challenging it may be warranted.

This could be one, like I said, how that would work is we right now we're just asking for authority to go in there and clean it up, and then we'll figure out what to do about collecting the costs to make the taxpayers whole later.

Um, and that conversation would happen internally with the city attorney's office and the and the uh staff, and then ultimately we would we would take a recommendation to the city council if we felt like we could make a case.

Okay.

Thank you.

To our attorney went uh nuisance abatement.

That's not how they brought it.

All we can do is uh look at the cases how the city decides to bring up.

Yeah, as Jared said, there's a bunch of different reasons behind that.

Um a lot of times the whole process for foreclosure is much longer now.

Nuisance abatement, that's up to the city on how they want to proceed, whether they want to do it just as a nuisance abatement or the process that we're doing here.

And what's the shortest time period we can give you authorization to go in there and do this?

Do we have to wait 30 days or can we?

Three days is the only way the shortest.

I think we should give that.

That's an excellent point.

I was wondering why we were doing like June 27th.

Uh care to say anything about that, inspector, or Mr.

Garrett.

We just chose 30 days just to um give them get another fair chance.

So is that not going to reset everything for the fines or anything else?

I mean don't care about that.

My opinion is that we have an order that establishes that that there is a violation in place already.

Those fines are running, and um what we're seeking now is an essentially an abatement order.

Um it's it wasn't um on that portion of your agenda as but it I think we put a suggested motion in in the PowerPoint, and we're just asking for a motion of that uh that that would sound like or look like that.

Um if the city the the fines for the previous order would continue to run up until the date that the city um carries out the abatement and cleans the property.

Yeah, it's an unsafe building.

I mean the city can come in quicker if they need to.

That's up to the city.

I think we should put a motion here earlier than June 27.

I think you can come in quicker if you want a shorter period of time.

Secure the property, especially in light of the fact that there's previous fines on this property that have uh that are still continued.

I just think if you have people living on it, it's not safe.

Is there a is there a legal requirement for owner notification before any action is taken?

Yeah, is it so we need it should be probably something like 10 days?

Ten days would be fine.

Uh to make sure the owners gets legal notification that way everybody's rear end is covered so to speak.

I don't think any time period's gonna affect it.

I don't either, but I don't want it argued later either.

So yeah, we have no there's an existing unsafe building order out there, no, or no, yes, there is okay.

So what are we adding now that's not included in that order?

The remedy to demol for the city to demolish or just okaying that's the it says including entry on for the park property to bring the property into compliance.

Does that not get you there?

Yeah, what like I was saying earlier we because we have this old order, we hadn't acted upon it in in many years.

Um we we thought it was best to come back, have it have a hearing to make clear that we were going to act on the uh authority to demolish.

But if it was only a year, wouldn't you you'd have the same issue?

What would what would you do normally?

Wouldn't you give them a notice?

Subject to the are you saying that their order is invalid now?

Is that what you're saying?

No, you're just saying it's homestead, you can't you can't do it.

Well, if it's homesteaded, you can foreclose it.

But but you can go in and fix unsafe conditions, yes.

And that's already been authorized through that original order.

So I'm not sure what would you do normally if this was six months or a year from that that order, you wouldn't come back and ask us to do another order.

You'd have some type of notification that you do routinely to the owner and say, Hey, we're coming in.

Yeah, we're gonna we would send a letter, we would run title, we would um we would start moving that process forward.

Get getting it.

So what doesn't that work now?

Uh we just it it had gone, it's been a long time for this one, so we we brought it back.

The only thing I would tell you is that that's the city that's how the city would like to proceed.

And they're bringing it before you and making that request.

Okay, okay.

Let's do it.

Well, instead of 30 days, can we just give them half of that?

15 days?

I think we're gonna do 10.

10 days 10.

All right.

May I have a uh first motion, please?

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

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

I have a second motion, please.

You may, but what am I supposed to say here?

Because it's not a violation.

Are they getting they're not getting chart another charge every day that they're not in there?

Well, they've brought a I mean so what do I say here?

And what's the 10th state from now?

June and you can give them another fine if you so choose because it's basically considered a separate case.

Okay, yeah.

So we'll do 150 days.

What's 10 days from now?

150.

150 dollars um the seventh.

Well, it's in the original.

It's the seventh.

I mean, you can the seventh.

Just so you know, you can do up to 250 dollars per day.

Okay, let's do June 7th.

250 a day.

Good chills.

Okay.

I'm waiting for a motion.

Okay.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before June 7th, 2026, 2026.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of 250 dollars per day for a violation for each day, each violation of duties 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.

But I have a question.

Oh go ahead.

Motion passes.

Thank you, board.

Does this give the city the permission to go in and demolish?

Because it seems like we already had this in place.

Well, I mean it's what I said.

If the if the board is authorizing that, then that's what then that's what it is.

And that's what we're asking for.

So I we just wanted to be clear that we're asking for the authority to demolish from the board.

So is that if the board is going to give us that authority, then we can work to carry that out within the time frame that the board specifies.

So do we need to have that in our order, though?

That would be my my request would be that someone would make a motion that the city could correct the violation by any means necessary as it's stated on the on the screen there.

Um within if the if the time frame from the board is 10 days, then that would be stated.

And that that's the motion that that we were looking for just to clarify that we we do have that express authority and then we're gonna act on it.

Okay, well, we can make a motion just with this verbiage right here, uh, changing the date.

So we already voted on it though.

Well, but that doesn't mean we can't make another motion on the same case, does it not?

I don't know.

Well, you made a motion, you seconded it, everybody voted in favor.

I would just go forward with what the city has been asking and let them deal with that.

I think they're comfortable.

Definitely so everything we did made it okay for you to go in and tear it down.

Okay, I'll go in and secure the 10 days.

They'll secure the property how they see fit.

Okay.

Okay.

I do not have a copy of the lien reduction request on our next you can pass one over to me.

I do now.

Thank you.

Do you need one?

All right, that concludes our uh new business items.

Uh next is old business items, and it's uh on our agenda, it's number 4.1, it's case 128-25.

Consider request by petitioners paroli windows and doors LLC at 1165 Elder Street to reduce the fine regarding permits and if approved issue an order that specifies a fine that includes administrative costs and administration costs and establishes a date payable or the lien will revert to its original amount.

I believe we have someone here to speak on that.

I recognize his face.

Yes, I think.

Hi, welcome back.

Had we known it's going to be this long, we'd probably put you first up at that.

That's all right.

Sorry for the waiting time.

Um again, my name is Clint Morrell.

I'm uh counsel for following windows and doors.

Do I have a floor now or no?

I know.

Give me the line.

I don't know.

I have to uh look and see in with that or what you can guide me on what we do next.

Who do we hear from?

Okay, here we go.

All right.

So you stated your name.

Uh all right, let's hear from the inspector next.

Hello again, board and inspector Cat Reese with the city of Clearwater.

This is uh in reference to case 128-25.

They are requesting a lien reduction at 1165 Eldridge Street.

I can go through the old slides if you want, um, but I I prefer to just skip down to our recommendation.

I think we should have the testimony.

Okay.

So in reference to case 128-25, uh, the city's total cost is $1,707 and 20 cents.

The city does not support granting a lien reduction until all open code violations have been brought into compliance.

Should the lien reduction subsequently be granted, the city recommends that the reduced lien amount be no less than the city's include costs.

Okay.

Well, I have a question before you step away.

Is it I'm getting the idea that it's not in compliance?

Is that correct?

The violation that was brought before the board has been met.

So it is now in compliance, but there is still an open stop work order that has been um ignored that will be brought before the the code board shortly.

Um so that is why the city is not recommending the lien reduction until all violations are in compliance.

Your general rule is if the violation that money is tied to with a fine, has been come in compliance, then you can hear a reduction.

That's been your rule in the past.

However, there is a consideration of what else is going on with the property.

Um the only thing I would tell you in that is that may be a consideration on whether or not you're going to reduce the fine.

Um so the board may want to look into whether or not you want to delay making a finding until the rest of the code cases are resolved.

Yeah.

This is all at your discretion.

That would be my first instinct of just I have some questions anyway.

Yes, please.

Well, I think we should hear their thing because I okay.

What is what is the I have a couple of questions if you don't mind.

Yeah, because what is the stop work order regarding um was the the fence done without a permit or so?

Do you see these blue awnings right here?

Um they are they have footings, it needs engineer signing sealed plans, it needs to get permitted.

Um it looks like it's coverage for the whatever they do back there for work.

Um it's very difficult.

So this was they this was at the time had nothing in the the property back in uh 2019.

So this is from 2025, and there are all these awnings throughout the property.

We don't know the setbacks, we don't know any of that, but it does require permit because it is um they it does it is into the ground, so okay.

But does the name oh sorry?

I was gonna say the stop work orders uh uh is in reference to specifically those.

That is correct.

It was separate from the fence because that requires its own permit.

All right.

I when I first started again was going down a list, so that is why it wasn't met at the same time.

It was uh overwhelming amount of cases to take over.

I'm sure.

Uh so and I but I did make the attorney aware at our last code board meeting that they also had this violation.

I've sent the notices that will be brought before the code board uh within the next two months.

Okay, so the fence was permitted and was inspected and is now in compliance, and that permit is closed.

Yes, sir.

All right, good.

All right.

Um question to the inspector before we move forward.

Talk to me.

Well, we we have a ten thousand five hundred dollar desired lien reduction here.

It's more than an application.

That's that's the total um amount uh of the current lien.

Um we of course would uh would like to hear the entirety.

My understanding is that the general policy is it doesn't go below uh what is the cost of having handled the matter which I think is uh administrative.

Right, which I think is a reasonable uh you know position, so we're not counting that, so we would request it down to to those administrative costs.

I wasn't my question was still what that figure was at the time uh when I submitted this, so it says the lien reduction is for the full amount, but we we know that that that's not going to be the case.

Um as far as that answer you no, I was actually asking inspector because I had questions for you.

Okay, so I was as I was saying we have 10,500 lien reduction.

In the letter that the I guess uh company sent president, they said when they first received the code enforcement board's first notices regarding the code violations for fence, they weren't aware they thought it was grandfathered in.

But I'm sure the city has a website that says fences are at to be permitted, re you know, if you're re put a new fence in, it all has to be permitted.

That is correct, and that's what you I'm sure you would advise.

Yes, or notice of violations goes over the code and as to what needs to get permitted.

Um so it they have been made aware legally by notice of violation.

Right.

Okay.

So in their letter they're saying they didn't understand that, but um I don't see how they could not.

But anyway, so now I will direct my questions to you.

Um you represented him this company back in October.

I didn't.

Uh well, so let me bring it back up.

My firm has represented this company for a while.

I was first brought in, as far as I know the firm was first brought in to handle this code violation matter uh in the uh December time frame after the notice went out of December 19th of 2025 for the hearing that took place on January 28th of this year.

Um so you're Mr.

Morrell.

I am Mr.

Morell.

So I'll get retained.

So I'll get retained in the case in the minutes of October 22nd, it says you were present at the October meeting.

Yeah, it's in our minutes.

Okay, if that's an error uh on my part, uh then I apologize uh for that.

Um just to the those that when they came to me, there were communications in cat.

And I don't mean we're not saying cat did anything wrong, cat communicated to them.

She advised that there had been some modifications to the fence or that the fence uh wasn't the same as it had been, and that it therefore needed to be grandfathered in.

Uh, but when they came to me uh to respond to the notices that had been sent, um, their understanding at the time was that this fence, I think they said it had been in place since the 60s, they thought it was grandfathered.

There was a concern that they would not be able to keep the barbed wire fence uh in place under the current code, and so they wanted that's why they were you know you know stuck on this idea that it was grandfathered.

I reviewed with them with the assistance of CAT.

We uh you know advised that there were some changes made to the fence.

We understand that the fence had been there for quite some time, uh, but the gate was moved.

I think the location of the gate was moved, um, the yellow items were put up, some of the slats in the fence were changed, and there may have been a few other things.

Um so at that time uh when I appeared, we did uh agree to undertake the the changes to the fence.

Um I apologize for the date error in this in this letter.

Um I assisted with drafting the letter, it's it's my error.

Um the after uh the the code of enforcement board made its its order, my client did endeavor to obtain uh the permits as quickly as possible.

There was an issue with a vendor on the property that actually damaged the gate, uh that resulted in an insurance claim.

Um the the scope of the work at that point is mandated.

Apparently, there's an issue with getting uh the gate uh to actually install, uh, and that all tied up and delayed some of the the process.

Um notwithstanding they did submit the the permit in February of this year, um, and that's uh you know, a few months after the understanding developed and the effort started to actually get the gate resolved.

Um so that's the basis.

I think there's a little more detail in the letter uh for uh for the request for the reduction.

Uh as to the other uh matter, I unfortunately do not have uh much information.

I wasn't made aware that that was an item.

I thought that it had also been resolved.

I didn't know that it was still proceeding and pending forward.

So um I'm gonna certainly go back and you know talk with my client about about that one.

Um but to extent they're unrelated, we would request that the board consider uh reduction notwithstanding.

Okay.

I still have another question for the gentleman.

Um so when did these contractors and the fence got hit by a car and stuff like that?

When was all that?

February?

No, I don't think that was in uh in February.

Uh I don't know the exact time period for for that.

I don't have that with me.

The reason I'm asking is because uh member Keene made this motion, and we we gave a lenient six months to get this all completed.

And so that takes you to January, and then the permit was issued in February.

And that violation for the fence has been in it is now in compliance.

So, yes, they're asking for a lien reduction since they did come in compliance, and they and and the city agrees they are in compliance with the fence, however, there is still an a separate outstanding violation that needs to be corrected.

That is why the city is not uh suggesting that we do the lien reduction at this time.

I'm sorry, what did you just say?

Yeah, the whole thing of course I'm looking for your recommendation reduction.

We we are not recommending the lien reduction until all of the violations on the property are brought into compliance.

Once that is done, they can go ahead um and and put in for another lien reduction, and we can redo uh the cost to the city and then move from there.

But but it's ultimately up to you.

Is there was there another order out there for this other violation?

There's an open stop work order, it is kind of incorporated.

And it has fines for that.

No fines until it's uh you know the affidavit of non-compliance is is uh given.

This name reduction was just for the fence, is my point.

Right, right.

Exactly.

But I have a viewpoint and a suggestion as uh chairman.

It would seem to me logically thinking that if there is a an open there's an existing stop work order on the property, much like if an owner has other properties and they're looking to separate, it would seem to me that the logical move is to delay consideration of any lien reduction until the other case is fully cleared and handled, and then if it if either the city or the the uh owner wants to bring it back before us when it's fully cleaned up, then it would seem more appropriate to consider it at that point in time.

But I'm I'm open to suggestions or questions or other.

My recommendation my recommendation is we deny the request based because I looked over the justifications, and I didn't agree with the justifications.

Okay, and then if they want to come back and apply later, they can, I guess.

But well, if we deny it, I think one of the counsels should should answer this, but one of them is speaking.

Um I'm um I'm inquiring right now because I don't think we've had we've had once it's denied, it's denied.

Yeah, so I don't think I'm not aware of a specific code provision that would say that they couldn't apply.

Um I know in other boards that I've worked with, we would uh discuss whether the denial was with or without prejudice, is the terms that the courts often use when they want to dispose of something and not revisit it again.

Um if I I would say that um since they have another case that they could potentially come back in front of the board.

Um we don't have an objection to the denial being without prejudice, which would mean that they could come back and ask for everything again.

That would be um our you know, our position.

We you know, if they wanted to come back later, we just don't think that it it makes sense to have it be uh piecemeal when there are other issues.

Um we'd like for it for the reductions to be um brought to the board when the entire property is in compliance and there are no compliance issues, but we discussed this before it came, and there's no rule that says that they can't come back piecemeal.

So we and obviously we think people are entitled to the hearings if they uh if they want to come in front of the board.

We don't want on the staff level to to say no, you can't even get in front of the board.

So we um you know we're having the hearing.

Our position is that it shouldn't be piecemeal.

Um if you're if you want to deny it, we have no objection to a denial without prejudice if you want it to make it a denial with prejudice.

Certainly, that's within your in your purview.

To understand a denial with prejudice means that it's done and we're not allowing any, and and there's no future uh denial uh without prejudice means that they could submit again.

That would be my my interpretation.

I've seen it done that way.

I would certainly defer to your to the counsel for the board if you had a different position.

What would the difference be between that and simply the uh saying we want to delay it until the properties in compliance in the other case is cleaned up with is there any difference between the two other than the fines continue to accrue or would it because they're in compliance, but what would be the difference?

Is there a difference?

I think there's a suggestion what if they just withdraw their application and come back later.

Can they do that?

I don't know, yes.

Who said yes, he said yes?

Who said the attorney said yes?

I want to I want to hear it from counsel.

Yes, yes, I said yes.

And then I drank some more uh yeah, so that would uh based on what I heard if we move on to withdraw the uh the application.

I can resubmit it correcting the uh the errors that I made.

I apologize for that.

I hear willing, but I didn't hear a request.

Oh uh yes, the board will allow us to withdraw this request uh pending reapplication and correction of the code files as property.

Do I hear any objections to that?

We we have no objection to that.

That would be proven for all concern.

Yeah, I think so.

Thank you.

All right, done then.

Thank you.

Do we need to um uh I guess we don't need to do anything with that if the uh presenter is there's nothing to do, right?

All right, it's no longer before you're something there today.

My goodness, all right.

Based on experience, we're going to approve all of the affidavits of compliance as one motion.

So I would like to uh have a motion from the board to uh approve the affidavits of compliance listed each by number, please.

You want each number?

Is that you could do one motion just recognizing the affidavit of compliance under 5.1.

Okay.

Good.

I'm ready for a motion from somebody.

I motion to approve all the affidavits in 55.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

All right.

Next case 5.2.

Case on our agenda.

Case 183-25.

Accept the affidavits of non-compliance for respondents.

Elizabeth Anderson at 200 Leeward Island for unsafe buildings.

Inspector Larson.

Bear with me, second inspector, if you would.

Sorry.

We don't.

Do we call for public homies or no?

Normally, unless unless there is somebody out there who wants to speak on their particular case.

Otherwise, I mean, we've we've had this discussion several times.

I know.

You can I my opinion, the city of Jacks, my opinion is that you can just accept the affidavit of non-compliance as presented because they've already presented the case.

And you've made a finding, and they're telling you it didn't come in compliance.

Right.

I don't think we need testimony to say it didn't come in compliance.

We have an affidavit, a sworn affidavit saying it didn't.

I agree.

So I would say, unless there's somebody here that wants to speak on an affidavit of non-compliance, I would say that you should probably take each one separately and just vote on them.

Accepting the affidavit of non-compliance.

That's typically what we go to the past.

The only reason I ask is it's I see public in the audience and I want to make sure I'm no I and that again is up to the board if they want to hear from us people.

All right.

Without an objection from the board, then we'll just move forward with the cases.

Okay.

Unless somebody has an objection to that.

All right.

Sorry, Inspector.

You have the floor.

I'll come my picture's not up there.

Wait.

So this is the affidavit of non-compliance.

Yes, sir.

I just wanted to make sure you guys knew exactly which property we're talking about.

Okay.

Um Greenwood Island.

No.

There you go.

No, no, no.

You guys all recognize that.

So we're showing you which one it is.

It's just hasn't come into compliance.

That's what it looks like right now.

And I believe we do have someone here that wants to speak.

Is that correct?

Are you here for 200 Leeward Island?

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

If you want to talk and have the top.

I think it's it's equitable for fruit and curtain is still out of the order to speak.

Okay.

Yeah, we don't have.

I mean, just there are not strict rules of uh as if we had a trial.

There is some general rules we follow, but you can always take input if the board so chooses.

I'd hate to have her sitting right there.

I was gonna leave him in the car.

That's all uh you'd have been a gunner by now.

I owe you that.

Can you uh I got what?

Um I got uh Florida um I'm sorry, ma'am.

You need to identify yourself.

Yes, please.

Do you want to see my driver's light?

No, we're no, just the board needs to know who you are.

I got I got uh uh Florida um recovers.

They said they couldn't they might redo my house.

So um I because I've been I've got I called a lot of contractors and boy, no wonder you guys have a city list.

There's some of them are crazy.

I tell one in Tampa that there's no roof and I need help.

He calls up and says, How dare you?

You know, there's no roof.

You know, I tell so I had a I have a lot of contractors.

I got to FEMA.

I'm sorry, I'm a little nervous with this.

Take your time.

Yeah, you see.

Just take your time.

Okay, um what else?

I I I I got foundation.

I sent that to FEMA, 60,000.

I could get a loan to fix the foundation, but I don't have much to do it in peace.

No, but the whole house is gone.

Every furniture, everything, everything else is gone except for your dog.

And you and I'm gone from the whole thing.

So I don't want to look like a sympathy, yeah, but I have to recover, so um gonna go there.

I just want to see what plans because they want to rebuild the house.

You know, I live on Island Estates, I've lived there 57 years, and you can't just rebuild it in some there are a different breed that lives there now.

When I moved there, there were normal people.

Now my neighbor, he calls me out and says, When are you getting your ass out of there so I can rebuild so you can get a mansion up there?

You know, he wants me out.

And uh I'm like Carla Frederickson in Ups, because I haven't left.

Elizabeth, I have a request.

Can you tell us what the letter says, please?

Oh, should I put in this that would be good, thank you?

I just want to see what the letter says if you don't mind.

I was a nurse in Morton plant, and I and now if I went back there, everything's taken them off.

That's right, exactly.

I would be fired immediately.

Just drop it in.

Just face out.

Like you're gonna read it.

There you go.

I don't know if we can read that.

Can you even read that?

Can we make it so it's closer in so we can read it?

Thank you.

She's got an application for uh assistance, it looks like the amount of 25,000 and change.

What?

Uh you you fill out an application for 25,000.

Yeah.

And it's taken in this line.

And I have two options that you either take 25,618 dollars and eighteen cents with the money FEMA game.

And they start working, or I could not pay that and have a little cheaper house.

Maybe uh uh movie calls happens to work.

Okay.

It's not funny.

But nothing's been done at the house.

And frankly, I mean, I think counsel would argue, or inspector would argue we're beyond that point because this case was heard previously.

Uh there were times given, there were public fines assessed and we're at the point where it's uh it's been going on so long that we're here to rule on a uh on an affidavit of non-compliance.

What the city does after that, I mean the city.

The only reason the case is before us is to rule on an affidavit of non-compliance, and if nothing has occurred uh and the inspector is showing us current pictures, then I don't I don't want to be the bad guy, but I mean that is factually why we're here.

We've been down this road before where uh we've had cases brought before us, and we started, you know, there was a bit of hand ringing and so on and so forth, but at the end of the day, uh we're here to rule on the day uh whether or not you know there's a valid reason to rule on an affidavit of noncompliance.

So beyond that, I mean it we can get way off into the weeds on a number of subjects about the case and the individual and everything else, and so you heard the case, you you you provided an order.

Procedurally, you're accepting the affidavit of non-compliance, but there's no new evidence that changes whether or not they're not in compliance, right?

Well, okay, to be in compliance.

They want the contractors uh you know I understand that.

I think your remedies lie outside of the board here.

Um our hands are are somewhat tied by the fact that you know, even if we rule today and and and rule on an affidavit of non-compliance that doesn't stop your efforts outside of this board doing whatever you're gonna do.

This is simply a formality on our part that moves the city process along, and you're still entitled to do whatever it is you're gonna do with the property.

I I don't want to, you know, I I have I didn't want to lose my home.

I love my home, but I understand.

I I mean I have nothing left there, you know.

The and my lawyer, he's supposed to um do with the safety recall, you know, the car blew the whole house up, everything in it.

Yeah, understood.

I wish there was more that we could do for you, but I think your remedies your remedies are outside of what this board can do.

And the house doesn't let again as a formality to move the city process along, but you know, perhaps with what you've done here and with other potential remedies that are out there, then you'll you know you'll find a way to get it done.

But that's that's outside of our area of responsibility and expertise, and so we're not here to be hard on you.

I'm very sympathetic to your case, but you know, at the end of the day, we're how long can you keep it like that?

I know.

Yeah, exactly.

I mean, I could get a roof, you could get a tar, maybe, so it didn't look so bad, but again, that's that's a discussion we had with your inspector in the building department.

We're here today to rule on the affidavit, and that's about all we're able to do today.

So I wish we could do more, but we cannot.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming, and I'm sorry you had to wait so long.

And I'm glad your dog's okay.

So I'm sorry that I thought no, thank you for coming.

I appreciate it.

And good luck to you.

We'll keep our fingers crossed for you.

Thank you, guys.

You better highlight, though.

That's all I'm gonna say.

From Fitzgerald to that in mind.

Any other comments or questions from the boards on this board on this case?

It's just very well said, Mr.

Chairman.

So again, very well said, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You ready?

All right.

I'm ready for a motion.

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

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

Second.

Did I hear a second?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, board.

Thank you.

Item 5.3 on our agenda continued from March 25th.

2026, case 186-25.

Accept the affidavit of non-compliance for respondents level 13 asset management LLC at 534 South Keystone Avenue for permits.

Property is not in compliance.

Okay.

Thank you.

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

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

Okay.

All in favor?

Opposed.

The motion carries.

Item 5.4 has been withdrawn.

Item 5.5 has been withdrawn.

Item 5.6 case 20-26.

Accept the affidavits of non-compliance for respondents Troy Allen and Mary Blythe at 413 Pleasant Street for permits.

Inspector Reese.

Properties not in compliance.

All right.

I move to accept the affidavit of non-compliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states and 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.

Item 5.7.

Excuse me.

Case 26-26.

Accept the affidavit of non-compliance for respondents, City Square LLC at 522.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but I believe I may be incorrect, but I believe that these folks were here for that previous case.

Oh, they're here for 522, clearly.

Oh, is that the case we're on now?

Yes.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay, thank you.

Well, excuse me.

Okay.

I was close.

I was close.

All right.

Let me finish reading this.

Okay, thank you.

Case 26-26.

Accept the affidavit of non-compliance for city respondents, City Square LLC at 522 Cleveland Street for permits.

And you're here to speak on this.

All right.

So uh what would you like to tell us?

Oh, so I'm uh tenant of 520 and 522.

Um representing C Square LLC.

Uh she's our landlord.

We have been in contact with the city every day.

Every day we email, we go back and forth.

We have probably a couple times a week we have email documentation saying that we feel like the goalposts has been moved several times.

We've uh we've done the best we can.

We've needed the old permits to be voided.

Our they voided all the permits, and and we uh talked to our contractor that we've had on file.

We've had three contractors, two of which have no longer want to work with us because of the city's issues.

What this current contractor we have is Magnet Magnet Corp LLC.

They uh amended the permit BC P 206 0300522, was told to wait for voided old permits.

We waited and we've been just at the administrative spec and call.

Uh we haven't we've had we have never heard from Reese.

We've uh met her when I was here last time.

She has not been to our establishment, it's closed.

I'm losing money every week since it's been closed.

We still pay rent to Kathy.

We still we still try try to do everything we can to remedies issues.

We've uh the landlord's also expressed that she has not received this letter.

The only reason why we're here today is because we're on top of this because we know things are trying to get pushed through without us actually knowing what's going on.

I called her, she expressed that she asked for an address change, she did not receive notice of the hearing.

Who is she?

Uh Kathy Penegolis.

The owner of the property, yes, City Square L City Square LLC.

So I have we have documentations, emails.

I've met with not only fire, uh city city officials, uh CRA directors.

I've met with everyone.

So I'm sorry.

I did my wife's one.

Yeah, so I moved most of the emailing and the conversations back and forth.

So I as of this morning, um, I actually touch based.

This is before we even know that we were this was on the board.

Um, I actually touched base with the contractor and Rebecca Mulder.

Yes, sorry.

Um this morning to make sure that everything was still going the way it was supposed to be going, because we are doing our best to make sure that all these permits and everything are filed the way they're supposed to be.

Um we have been waiting the last I don't even know how many weeks because we needed old permits to be voided in order for these the new permits to be placed or to amend, and so that's what we've been waiting on.

I was in email, I can show you an email conversation with Rebecca stating, you know, can you approve that we are going to void out all of these older permits with contractors that we are no longer in conversation with that we can't even find communication to get in contact with them?

Um so that there's twice that that happened.

She asked me to approve the voids, um, and that's where we were at.

Um so when I checked with our contractor, they kept saying they're not voided yet.

We were told to wait because of the miscommunication of last time.

There was too many permits, they didn't know what was new, what was old, what's the correct one was not the correct one.

So that's why we agreed that we were going to void all the old ones and just have the one singular permit with everything under the scope of what needed to be fixed.

Yeah, we would just like to have a meeting and sit down with whoever's in the middle of the city.

I'd love to meet with her.

Never met with her.

Okay, let us talk with the court.

I appreciate your input very much.

Let's let's get some more data here.

Okay.

The scope of work was settled in code board.

Um that was made clear when the order to come in compliance uh was set.

There is no issued permit.

There is no active permit on file.

The permit that was that I presented before the board showed that they submitted for a permit but uploaded nothing.

That still stays the exact same state as it is today, as it was when I presented it.

I have had no communication from the tenants.

My communication has been with the property owner as well as her attorney who assured me that if they did not get the permit that the property owner would, because I advised her she's ultimately responsible, and it would be a civil matter for them going forward.

That's that's all I have.

There is no issue permit, it's not in compliance.

Was it was there a permit ever issued for the work that was done?

Not that I'm aware of.

No, it may have been because this was one of those very old cases, but the new permit that was put in just sits with nothing being uploaded.

Um, I haven't I've had no phone calls from the tenant.

Um I I made aware to him in the hallway, keeping communication with me.

I'm happy to work with everybody.

Um that has not happened.

Thank you.

Other questions, Mr.

Chair.

Can we also just if Madam Clerk could you um verify how notice was provided for this particular matter?

Yes.

Sent to cities.

I just also have a question for them.

Do you do you have you're saying that you had permits that got voided out?

Do you have those numbers?

Yes, I limit numbers.

It was mailed to City Square LLC in uh Chicago.

The notice it was signed for.

That would have been the owner, correct?

Okay.

Thank you.

So we put up to Mr.

Chairman.

So these are the tenants, these are the tenants.

And the tenants are responsible for permits.

Well, they built the space out.

I mean, ultimately, the uh I'm not really one to provide the opinion that should come from the building department, but ultimately we've heard from inspectors before that any construction requires permits, and according to the inspector, no permits were were pulled for the work that was done.

Well, if they built the space out, I mean, ultimately, the uh I'm not really one to provide the opinion that should come from the building department, but ultimately we've heard from inspectors before that any construction requires permits, and according to the inspector, no permits were pulled for the work that was done if permits were voided, but according to uh Inspector Reese, there was no permit on it, and there may have been an application filed by original contractor, but who knows?

All we know from Inspector Reese is that uh there are no and were no permits for the work.

And so I think what the city's asking is that it'd be permitted in present time, the work that was done and the and the scope of that work was clearly established in one of our previous hearings.

Right.

And and all the city can do is go against the property owner.

Whatever the property owner's involvement with tenants has nothing to do with how the city has to look at these.

Exactly.

Because we can't bring cases against tenants.

Understood.

And and there, you know, while the tenants uh data is welcome.

I understand the pickle they're in, ultimately our job is to look at whether the proper at this point, again, like I said addressed previously, is look at whether or not it's in compliance because the city's asking for an affidavit to non-compliance because the orders that we issued in in our previous hearings spelled out what uh the inspector spelled out what the scope of work was, and we issued orders saying you have so much time to get into compliance, and we're at a point now later in time where the inspector has has requested that we uh uh make motion on uh the fact that they're today they're not in compliance, and so that's that's what our duty is here today on this particular case.

I think our argument is saying that we would be in compliance if we had literally be compliance right this minute.

Also the last time that we were the voids were what ended up happening is the void was they voided the wrong one.

They voided all understanding.

And so now the second thing is last time that we had the permits, they were the scope of work, the scope of compliance like you guys are illustrating was uh HVAC systems that were not that wasn't an HVAC system, it was a fan with the filter.

There was a bunch of stuff that were on that that there was a plumbing issue that said there was water lines, no water lines were there, it's refrigeration, and that was the last time they were here.

But those arguments lie between either you and the or and or the owner with the building uh code official in terms of what is the true scope of work and what's necessary to require the violation.

So that argument is to be had with the code compliance officer and/or the building department in the process of pulling permits.

Okay, you you iron out what is it we have to do and getting that understanding that's between you and so while I appreciate the data and the explanation, yeah, that that doesn't change our uh duty or our uh looking at an evaluation of the fact that there was a previous order issued regarding that there were that was work done without permits.

Okay, that case was brought forth to us, and we ruled on it and allowed so much time for it to get in compliance, and here we sit here today, and and based on our previous order and data from the code officer, it's not in compliance.

It doesn't mean you can't go out there and talk to these guys and get it in compliance.

What it means is that we're getting data that says, okay, we ruled on it and said you had so much time, and here we are today, and it's not in compliance, and so our job today is look at it and say, is it in compliance or is it not?

And what do we do with that?

Of course, the remedy solution is to be to try to get compliance while communicating with the city and the city officials, right?

Right.

And anyone who's in regards to how we're describing not that not that we're not in not that what you're saying isn't true, is that we proceeded with what you're asking.

Right.

We have documentation emails doing exactly what you asked.

Right.

And and then we're now coming back, and there's gonna be now there's gonna be a set precedent that doing what you guys ask does not remedy the situation.

There's there's an underlying issue of what I would argue in an ineffective process that is negatively affecting your systems, which I would argue is a duty.

Uh and and so I'm not saying that you're it's not within the threshold of your authority.

I I'm saying that the process of which you're describing has been followed.

And now, and because of the administration or this current administration, uh what whatever uh preocks uh those things that you described across better that are now put on ownership are unable to be done and have been done according to what you're asking.

You said to communicate the permits to illustrate the concern, have documentation, follow permits, and we've been pretty and waited for like a response.

We we can't fix a problem if we don't know the scope.

You can't fix the problem if the scope was inaccurate.

Well, then that's a discussion to be had with the code compliance officer to nail the scope down.

It I mean, they they do that every day in terms of giving homeowners or giving property owners the understanding of what do I have to do to comply so I can make this go away.

That's what we did.

We actually sat with Dana Root and fire department and all every official there technically there.

I was there with two of my chief of staff asking what do we need to do and what's the scope of the work that we have to get done.

Multiple building officials were there.

It was described, it was said, and then the goal post is moved again.

Not until we got to what is that?

What does that mean?

The goal post was moved.

It means that like let's say let's do this.

You have to do this.

Okay, cool.

We do this.

Is this all we have to do?

I remember saying I will do whatever you guys need.

Just tell me what we need to do.

I proceed to do it, and then later on, add you left more things or added.

I'm not saying that I'm I'm willing to do whatever it has.

I'm one of the beggar builders uh in downtown clearwood.

Anything you guys want, I'll do.

I just want to be able to do it.

We're gonna say I think the first parties were right there.

We were just waiting on the city staff to void out those things so we can do this, and we would have had it done prior to today had it been done correctly.

Yeah, it's not an issue of funding, it's not an issue of intent, it's an issue of communication.

I got it.

Right, Mr.

Gary, did you have something to offer?

Yes, I just want to make the board aware that this has been ongoing for several years.

The staff from director level to inspector level have met with these people numerous times.

We've gotten lip service over and over again.

What we get submitted is absolute garbage, it's not worth anything, and when they say that it's being voided out, that's exactly why it's being voided out.

Things don't make sense, it's nonsensical, and we have done everything in the world to try and get these people into compliance, and they resist.

They give you lip service and say, Yes, yes, I'll do whatever needs to be done, but they do not.

Okay.

I just want you to be aware of that.

Okay, thank you.

And you're you're talking about the city square LLC people.

Is that um excuse me?

Let me just ask is is are you talking about the tenants or the owner or both, or what?

Uh the tenants.

They um I have talked to the owner, and she assures that she's gonna make sure that it gets done.

They've hired uh consultants, uh Kathy is her first name, and her last name is I'll probably uh Patty Golas, yeah.

And she's uh last I talked to her, she's living in um Orlando, and she uh assured us that she was gonna get things done, but when she puts it back on to the um she had a consultant, maybe two, and they have come and gone.

Um, our assistant director has been out there and walked through the property.

Um it's just ongoing ongoing and we get nowhere.

Okay, and that's pretty in the whole issue that property owners are in compliance.

Or not pretty much what I've just said.

Then why don't why don't we go forward with that instead of all this other I'm ready?

I just wonder if you understand more dragging it out with the tenants, and it's not up to the tenants.

Okay.

Any other questions or input from the board?

All right, I'm uh Inspector Reese.

You did you have one other anything else to offer?

I think let me permit all right.

I'm ready for a motion.

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

Or settle such lien.

Second it's all in favor, aye all opposed motion carries.

All right, page 28-26.

Accept the affidavits of non-compliance for respondents' proactive property management of 3404 Brigadier and Circle for permits.

Inspector Reese.

The property is not in complaints.

Okay, all right.

I have a motion.

I move to accept the affidavit of a 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 lean.

I'm second it.

All in favor, aye.

All opposed.

Accept the affidavits of non-compliance for respondents Hannah Patara and Mariha Ibrahim at 4,000 brigadier circles for permits.

And that property is not in compliance.

All right.

I move to accept the affidavit of non-compliance 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 propose, collect, or settle such lien.

All opposed motion carries.

All right, moving on to nuisance abatement filings.

For respondents Wanda Bickers and John Garner at 2044 Los Lovos Drive for an operative vehicle and issue an order with a compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation.

If compliance is not met.

Yeah, no.

What's that?

I think there was somebody on the previous case.

Are you here for 4004 brigadier?

Oh, there it is.

Good job.

All right, let's hold up a second here.

Um we have a gentleman here for 4,000 four brigadin.

Yes.

I think we have already uh ruled on his case.

Um I would bring him forward and listen and listen to what he has to say.

So please come forward.

Our preference is to hear from the individual time.

We allow you to hear that.

That's when we apologize.

We still have a number of cases.

I'm sorry.

I didn't catch you, so my apologies, sir.

What would you like to tell you?

Um I'm the son of Mabia and Hannah's more.

Um could you just were you sworn in when you came in?

Yes.

Okay.

I've been here the whole time.

Yeah, three hours, huh?

Three hours just for this.

Pierre Daniel.

Pierre.

Pierre Daniel.

Yes.

Thank you.

Please go ahead.

Yeah.

Um, so yeah, so I was told about this again.

This is uh a home that my mom and dad they rented out.

Um my mom is like working full-time, my dad had a stroll.

So I'm like helping them out with it.

Um I don't have the best experience when it comes to my contractors.

I was uh I mean, someone like took money from me to go a job once, and then like to it's it's not the best thing to deal with.

Um I don't know a lot of people to do that, and again, this we bought the house like that.

It's been there for like 20 years.

I I like I just don't know who to go to.

And again, this is a lot of money, so I was just here um before and then cat has been really helpful.

Like trying to give me a lot a lot of time, but I was working in the other house trying to fix other um uh violations, it was like the fence and all that stuff, so I was working with that, and again, it's like not a lot of money to do this stuff when the house is not really bringing the anything like whatever they make from the house, it just goes in this time.

Um thank you for coming.

Sorry you had to wait so long for this, but appreciate the input.

Well, we've already rule on this case, and uh serious motion to um rehear it to I mean, in essence, you'd be changing your findings if you're not going to change your findings, and there's no reason to make a motion.

So I guess the bottom line is that does anybody want to make a motion to reopen?

I don't think so.

I just have a question for Pierre.

So what you're saying, sir, is that they don't have money to do it, so they can't do it.

Well, the money is very tight right now.

As I said, my debt is not working.

My mom is the only one on supporting the house.

Um, so if there's not a lot of money, and there's a lot of expenses that they have.

So right now, when we just finished the uh fence and all this stuff, there's not a lot of money right now to pull that permit.

And I don't know, I don't even know how much that will cost, but I know contractors are very very expensive, and I don't even know if I hire someone or they go through it or not.

And what is the situation?

Is this the patio that was built?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Do you have anything to say?

I mean, we've already unless there's a motion to revisit it and reopen it and invalidate our earlier ruling with the intent to change the ruling or change the acceptance of the of the uh nuisance abatement, then there's no point.

We we the city we would object to revisiting the older ruling, but we have um and there have been situations where if the board saw that the affidavit of non-compliance, if compliance was close, the board postponed the acceptance of the affidavit and maybe you know delayed the delayed adjudication in that in that way.

It doesn't sound like that's the situation here, and my recommendation would be that the gentleman and his family pursue the lien reduction process once um once they are able to sort that out because that's gonna be available to them any time frame.

And if and that's that's the proper um forum for presenting all of the hardships and all of the many things that you the bumps along the road that you encounter when you're coming into compliance, and that's where the board can take into consideration all those things and and reduce the board.

And as you as the board's well aware, the city um is usually very deferential to the board, and and we don't normally take a very uh hard position in reducing those fines unless there are some extraordinary circumstances where we would uh object um to a reduction.

Otherwise, we'll you know we completely defer to the board and hearing out the circumstances.

Did you understand what he was saying?

Okay, um I'm happy to step out and speak with them.

That would be great.

I think that's the uh that's a that's a good path to follow.

So basically you guys are just I just need you to come to my own.

Okay, so basically you guys just already decided what was going on, and then that's why you can't go back and change what you're doing.

Well, they could go back because happening.

Yeah, I don't think that's the best uh resolution or the best path forward to go back and revisit it.

The you have other remedies available uh that Mr.

Simpson will discuss with you.

I mean, other uh things that you can do along the way as you get this accomplished.

So what was the judgment that I was gonna be fine 150 a day?

I believe that's it is, but you can then ask once you get what you did, what needs to be the non-compliance that's happening right now, once that's fixed, you come back and you ask for a lien reduction, and that will take away potentially if it does if it's done correctly and in a certain amount of time, then you can ask for that to be reduced.

I'll that be the whole amount or like if you're let's say it's ten thousand dollars, you can come back and say I would like it reduced.

There will be an admin fee that gets attached to that, but it's usually like a thousand bucks, but it really just depends on how long it takes you to get it all done.

Yeah.

There will be administrative cost.

There we go.

There will be administrative cost.

The city has certain administrator tell us that it would be go below that.

Yeah.

As the city does their paperwork and includes their what time they have in dealing with this administratively, they accrue some costs.

Okay.

So I just don't understand, like instead of me hiring some a contractor to do this, now I'm gonna be fined 158-day.