Today's meeting of municipal code enforcement board is called to order on June twenty-fourth, twenty twenty six.

Welcome everyone.

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

We serve voluntarily.

If necessary, they will be escorted from chambers.

Yes.

All right.

Motion to approve the movements.

Yeah, there we go.

Second.

All in favor?

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Next on the agenda are new business items.

First on our agenda is item three point one that has been withdrawn.

Second item is three point two.

Madam Secretary has asked me to have this continued.

Um continued until next month.

Is that correct?

Yes.

All right.

What's our date for next month?

July twenty-two.

All right.

Motion approved.

No motion to continue.

Motion motion continues to both July twenty second.

It's both of them.

They're the same individuals.

All right.

Somebody give me a motion.

I make a motion that 3.2 case number 64-26 and case number 6526 are continued until July 22nd.

May I have a second?

Did I hear a second?

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Our next case.

3.4 on the agenda.

Continued from April 22nd, 2026.

Case 80-26.

Find respondents Andres Perez and Zoila Perez at 2021 North Betty Lane.

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

I understand on this case we have uh people here and an interpreter involved.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

So the respondent did not appear, so we don't proceed.

With nobody seeing nobody, Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, co-forward.

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

This is going to be for case 80-26 at 2021 North Betty Lane.

Sorry.

It's going to be for one violations permits required section 4-203.a dot one.

Specifically permit required for garage conversion to include windows, doors, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing.

Had multiple notices of violations that gone out.

This is one of the old cases as well.

Began in March 18th of 2022.

Final notice was sent November 21st of 2025.

Certified mail was signed December 24th of 2025.

So this is going to be on Betty Lane, just south of Idawild Drive.

And this is the structure that is requiring permits.

And that was the original inspection photos that were taken.

I'm sorry to interrupt you.

Can we go back to that?

Are we looking at the property in the foreground or the one over the fence?

Right here, this yellow garage.

The window was installed here.

This was closed off.

That's fine.

I just it looks like you're looking at the defense from a primary.

I wasn't doing anything with the property.

I just wanted to make sure I knew what I was looking at there.

Thank you.

I do believe that was from Street View, though.

Yeah, it's a weird weird street there.

Understood.

So the uh property owner did apply for a permit back in 2022 to come into compliance, however, it has expired as of January 2nd of 2025.

Umpections.

So the point of this permit is to ensure that all that work is up to code.

And uh, you know, we've had multiple continuances on this case, try to work with the property owner when he comes and shows up the code board, and he's not here today, so we just need to move on with this.

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

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

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

Any questions?

Any questions from the board for inspector reese?

No, no.

All right, may I have a first motion, please?

I move to enter an or an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before uh July 24th.

This is the first one.

First motion.

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

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 July 24th of 2026.

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

I have a second.

Chelsea, second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector Reese.

Next on our agenda item 3.5, case 107-26.

Find respondents Hoise Louise Jones at 1834 North Washington Avenue in violation of code for exterior services.

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 in relation to the property for us?

Yeah.

I um Jose Jones and I am the proprietary or owner of the of the house.

Okay.

So you were reside there.

The address listed here is your address.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Uh the first question we have for you is do you admit or deny the violation?

No, I I admit that yes, I I had not been able to do the repairs.

I have hired people to do it, and they just walk away with my money.

Understood.

For now, I'm sorry to mean interrupt you.

For now, what we're gonna do is first we'll hear from the inspector.

Let him present what information he has, and then we'll call you back up to tell us more, okay?

Sure.

All right.

May I may I have a first motion, please?

Yes.

I move to find the respondent in violate.

Oh yes.

First motion for this.

Yes, first motion for this.

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

Sorry.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Inspector Dixon, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, board.

I'm Greg Dixon.

I'm co-compliance inspector for the city of Clearwater.

This is case 107-26 for 1834 North Washington Avenue.

There's one violation at the property for exterior surface violation, code section 3-1502B.

Um this case started with a courtesy notice in March of last year, and then I sent certified mail out later in the fall, and then I posted the property in January.

This is the property.

This is later in the fall of last year.

And this is in January when I post the property.

Not much changed.

The grounds have been cleaned up, but the uh the house still needs some attention.

Here's the property today, chipped and peeling paint, rotten wood on the exterior.

May I ask you a question while we're looking at these pictures of this siding?

What type of sighting is that?

Is that a uh masonite sighting, or is that uh like a mineral siding?

What is that?

The green pardon.

That's what it looks like, but yes.

I'm not sure what it's made out of this board.

I'll put that stuff up.

So are we looking at fence violations too?

Or could you explain what this is?

No, those could just be thrown away.

I'm not sure if those are from his property or the neighboring property.

Is it just for the exterior of the home?

Okay.

So compliance can be met for the exterior by replacing any defective or structural and decorative elements of any a defective structural or decorative elements of any building wall, and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, root rust, loose material, faded and peeling paint, and I would request compliance honor before August 1st or a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation.

Board, do you have any questions?

Okay, thank you, sir.

Mr.

Jones.

What can you tell us uh about about all this?

Yeah, if you notice on the pictures, I've been trying to do the job myself.

Um to no avail.

I am very slow.

I I did had actually uh hernia, a double hernia surgery back in 2024.

And what happened is I had a physical altercate with my ex.

And he punched me right there.

And he re-ruptured both of them.

So it's hard for me to live with.

I was told by the doctor I cannot live more than 15 pounds.

However, I've been doing some work as best as I can.

I'm having a hard end.

Sir, can you can you either get closer to the microphone or pull it back?

So we want to be able to hear you and understand you.

Okay.

So I so what happened is I I did have a hernia repaired, and then I had a physical heart again.

I mean a fight with my export he was taken away.

And then he punched me right there, and then he reruptured my hernia.

I don't have money to get the surgery right now, but I'm scheduled supposedly for the 25th of July.

And I'm waiting for that.

I cannot lift in much weight.

I was told that I could only lift 15 pounds.

However, if you notice in the pictures, you will see that this the peeling of the painting outside of the house was not as bad as the very last photo.

If you look at it, it says that's been me.

I scraped, and I took all the peeling, and I've been doing the best that I can.

But I'll admit that I'm very slow.

Understood.

I've been hiring people to do this work for me.

And so far I have had like three different people walk away with my money.

What can you tell us about your plans to get the repairs done?

Um I do have my friend coming over from Minnesota.

I moved from Minnesota to here, from Minneapolis to here.

And then he's coming over and within the next couple of weeks, but that's as fast as he can.

And I do have also one of the neighbors that he said that he will help me out.

The truth is I don't have much money left.

I was a drug driver.

I draw OTR, which is over the road all over the country, and my boss doesn't want to get me back until I fix my hernia because he thinks I'm I would be a liability.

So until I get my surgery, I cannot go back trucking.

But I'm waiting for that so I can make some money and then continue to improve my property because it needs quite a bit of work.

It was a fix-it-up right, and I bought it about in 2014.

And I, of course, everybody wants to live in a beautiful home.

I'm not obsession to that.

And I do want to also, but I need to be in a physical, you know, optim uh and optimal physical condition too.

Okay.

Mr.

Jones.

And yes, I am very slow.

I'm sorry.

I have a question, Mr.

Jones.

Do you think your friend is gonna come over from Missouri in the next couple weeks to help you?

Uh your house, the outstanding condition.

Do you think he'll be able to do that before August 1st?

I'm hoping so because uh he's a well hoping and thinking and knowing is is two different things.

I all all I had to present to you is just his word and what he said, and I'm trusting that uh he has he told you that he could come over.

He has done good by me in the past, so I'm hoping he was the one that actually helped me replace the pitch the window that it was uh uh broken in the side of the house.

And he did that and also the back door.

And what happens if he does?

What happened if he doesn't?

And then I'm gonna have to try to find a way to do it.

I I'll admit I don't have money to hire a contracting company.

I have checked.

It's a rage expensive.

I know how to do some of this work, and I've been doing it.

But right now I have I have a physical impediment, that's all.

Okay.

Have you uh have you been in touch with your uh inspector coded?

I didn't call him once.

Um when I got the first letter, I did call him once, and then I explained to him that I don't have the ability to do all of it as fast as he wanted me to do it.

He gave me 30 days.

Okay.

So at that point, I'll admit that all I have to do is just drop my arms and whatever comes.

Because I don't have the money and I don't have a workforce.

I just do what I can.

What um do you have a clear understanding of what it is you need to do to get in compliance?

Uh yeah.

Um I did hire a um an electrician, and I'll admit that this is a problem that I do have.

I hired an electrician because my ceiling fan in the living room was not working.

And then when I came back from work, and then he said that everything was done, he put the key in there, so when I turned the light on, it it actually sparked and damaged my hallway and my bathroom.

So when I turn the light on, it it actually sparked and damaged my hallway and my bathroom.

I don't have electricity in my living room, hallway and bathroom.

I need to hire somebody to do that.

Somebody said that it will help me.

I'm trusting that that will happen.

And in the when it comes to the siding, I'm trusting that I could actually count on these people to help me out with that.

I know I can do the work.

I've painted apartments and houses before for a living.

Mr.

Jones, we're we're not dealing, and I can understand your predicament with the electrical, but we're not dealing with the inside of your home right now.

We're dealing with the exterior.

I just wanted to let you know that uh as well as I am trusting these people that are coming to help me in the outside of the house.

I do have also problems inside of the house.

I mean I house a big responsibility, and I do understand that.

However, it's only me against the whole structure and at this point.

And I will do my best to bring it back.

I have a question, Mr.

Jones.

Um I just want to understand if I could if I confirm that I heard you correctly.

Earlier you said that the pictures that were shown on the screen were not accurate and that you were scraping the paint off.

Is that is that what I heard?

If you look at the pictures before, and you look at the very last picture, you will see that the shades, I mean the patches are bigger.

The reason for that is because I actually took I took you took me a whole weekend, uh, Friday, Saturday, and Saturday to scrape everything.

So you're working currently on the outside of the exterior of the home is um inspector Dixon.

Have you seen the property?

What's the when was the last time you actually saw this property to confirm if Mr.

Um Jones is working on the property itself?

I'll sign.

Uh my pictures were from this morning.

From this morning, okay.

All right, thank you.

So actually it's not better, Mr.

Jones.

It's been scraped off.

It's different.

It's different, yes.

It's not better.

I'm just gonna what his picture showed.

It's not better.

Um I'm scraping it so I can prime it and then paint it.

Because uh it has a lot of peeling.

And then if I don't scrape the peeling, I can help paint.

Yeah, it has to be prime because you scraped it off and then painted.

But I haven't gotten to it yet.

I can't lift the five gallon.

I understand that.

I'm just going by what you said though.

His pictures showed it to look worse than what it is.

It does.

It does look worse, yes, because I I scraped it.

So I make the uh the patches.

I made them worse, of course, but it has it has to be scraped off before I can actually prime it.

And I already have the prime, and I already have the getting it ready for your friend to come over and and yeah, okay.

Um I already pay for his you already paid for that service.

Yeah, I pay I no, I I I know I'm gonna pay him.

I he's gonna help me.

Uh, but I did pay for his uh uh greyhound bus.

I'm sorry, say that again.

Greyhound bus ticket.

I did pay for that.

You pay for his ticket over.

Okay.

So he can come over.

I'm hoping that he will actually come.

You say you can do it for free.

Yeah.

Because uh he has helped me in the I helped them too.

Okay.

Good.

I used to live in Minneapolis and he used to be my landlord.

That'll help me, yeah.

I'm hoping so.

You said you paid for his ticket over.

What's the date of his ticket?

Uh I'm I'm hoping that he will come up, he will come up in two weeks, and this is gonna be like third.

But did you say you bought his ticket to come here?

What is the tape?

I well I sent them money so he could get you sent him money to buy the ticket.

128 dollars.

Can you call him to confirm when he's going to come?

Oh, he yeah, he said that I I keep in touch with him.

I know, but you keep saying you're hoping.

That's not no.

No, I I did.

I I I spoke, I I I spoke to him only last minute.

And then so you sent him money to to for him to buy a ticket to come over, but you have not confirmed the date as to when your friend is gonna be coming over.

I believe that he already purchased the ticket for the third.

He already purchased it.

I believe so, yeah.

You believe so, okay.

I don't have some permission.

What are you thinking you'd like to extend the uh compliance date, maybe give an extra 30 days?

Uh maybe September.

We'd be okay with that.

That's what I wanted to hear.

All right, so thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

I just want to clarify.

So if he scrapes paint the siding and the gutters and stuff, that'll take place.

You understand that, Mr.

Jones?

Yeah.

I believe that I can I can do all the painting, but I'll admit I don't know how to do the woodwork.

So that's why I need him.

I need Kevin to do that.

I don't know how to do that.

Now what happens if if it delays?

Will you be in contact with the inspector and let him know?

Yeah.

Questions from the board.

All right.

May I have a second motion?

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

Yeah.

Is that what we're doing?

Yes.

Yes.

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

Thank you, sir.

So moving on.

Uh next on our agenda number 3.6, case 108-26.

Fine respondents Hugo Pause Mateos and Anahi Mehia at 405 North Highland Avenue in by in violation of code for 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?

Inspector Casman, you have the floor.

Give it a second.

All right.

Second set, Danny.

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

This is case number 108-26 for 405 North Highland Avenue.

There's one violation here for code section 3-1502 G1, G2, and G3 for exterior storage.

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

I also did have to post the property with the affidavit of posting.

Just give it a second.

There we are.

So this is 405 North Highland Avenue.

As you can see in this first photo, there's some concrete bags, some construction materials in the front of the porch there.

The person there seems to be pretty handy.

There's a lot of tools outside.

This was the day of the posting.

The pallets were still there.

The same items were outdoors.

This is after the compliance date after the posting, the same items again.

We're still outdoors.

Someone did call me from the property and ask what they needed to come to compliance.

I explained exactly what had to happen.

But uh when I went back today, it was some improvement.

I can see behind some makeshift fence they have, but they do have piles of tires and buckets in the backyard too.

The situation up front on the porch is definitely improved, but there's still gas cans, buckets, looks like some drywall and some laundry detergents sitting outside.

And they did clean up most of the pile of pipes and wood, but they left a bunch of rebar, just there adjacent to the new driveway putting it.

So appliance we met for the exterior storage by removing from the grounds of the property all items not meant for updoor use, such as pallets, pipes, construction materials, tires, buckets, and other miscellaneous items.

And requesting for case number 108-26, uh request compliance order before July 24th, 2026, or a fine of 150 dollars per day for violation for each day the violation continues to exist.

Daniel, I just have one question for you.

Uh, does the exterior surfaces cover that boarded up window?

The boarded up window was another case.

I don't know if you noticed in me one of the last pictures.

They removed the board from the window.

No, I didn't see that.

Oh, I might have gone too fast.

The truck is also kind of blocking.

That window that you're seeing right here.

That's the same window.

Yes, if you go back to a previous picture.

Okay.

It was boarded up, but they did they at least remove the board, which was an easy fix.

The rest of it's just putting everything else away.

Okay, do thank you, Dan.

It also looked like in one picture there's no pavers, and then all of a sudden there's pavers, but they're not that's being addressed by a separate case for installing a driveway with no permit.

Okay.

Now you you mentioned you spoke to someone this morning.

Did you know?

It wasn't, I'm sorry, maybe I it wasn't this morning, it was a few weeks back.

Someone had called me, someone from the residence that claimed they live there, and I tried to explain to them.

This is what you need to come into compliance.

Every construction material, everything that doesn't belong outdoors needs to be indoors.

You can't have all these items outdoors.

So there was some improvement, but it's just not where it needs to be still.

So not in all areas.

No, I mean it is improving.

Any other questions from the board at all?

May I have the first motion, please?

Mr.

Chairman and I moved to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the Fid David in this case.

May I have a second?

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

I have a second motion, please.

Mr.

Chairman, I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before July 24th, 2026.

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

Per violation for each day that each violation continues to exist.

It finds the fees remain unpaid.

Three months after such lien is filed.

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

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you very much about the next case, three point uh item on the agenda 3.7 is withdrawn.

3.8 is withdrawn.

3.9 is withdrawn.

3.10 is withdrawn.

Item 3.11.

Okay, so 113-26 find respondents William Meisner Jr.

and Megan Pettingell at 2967.

Canilwick drive north in violation of code for short-term rental and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

This is the letter.

They sent the letter because they couldn't read it.

The letter is this one?

Yes.

All right, so I have it.

Um correct.

Okay.

Good.

So for the record, we have a letter that was submitted by the owners uh who are not in town.

Uh on the letter at the end of the day, the gist of the letter is that it requests a lien reduction.

However, that is not apropos to the business or what we're looking at today.

So I would uh I believe they're requesting a lower fine amount than what we've the city's requesting.

I got you.

Well, um but I think they think that the fines have already started from the day of the violation, and they're not realizing that it doesn't start until there's an order.

So well, I would defer to counsel, but just as a as a general statement, in my experience, the appropriate approach, the most appropriate approach, is to hear the case, make an adjudication, and if at some point the owner wants to address fines, then they can do that in a lien reduction.

Um I think it'll be a little clearer once I give my presentation.

We are not seeking running fines, we're seeking a single flat fine for something that's already been completed that can't be cured.

So she's seeking a lower single fine.

Well, let's hear the case then.

It'll make more sense.

Like you uh board Sarah Green, code compliance manager for the city of Clearwater.

This is case number 113-26 for 2967 Kennelwick Drive.

There's one violation here for an illegal short-term rental and a violation of the development code.

Uh violation was sent and posted on 5-4, and the certified mail came back unclaimed.

Uh, the reason why this is a little different than normally when we bring short-term rail cases, we're looking towards ones that have their minimum stay like an Airbnb set to like seven days.

So normally what our care for that would be you need to update your listing to be the monthly minimum compliance.

In this case, this one and the next one that I'll be presenting after this.

Um, these are properties that have had multiple complaints in for neighbors.

Essentially, we've never been able to observe them having their monthly minimum set to anything but monthly.

So it's for all intents and purposes when we looked at it when the claims came in, it said monthly.

However, after multiple complaints, we came through and they had the evidence I have in here is that they have reviews that say people stayed for a six-night and a seven-night stay.

So that would be in violation of the short-term rental code.

Ordinarily, our violations are for not having the monthly minimum set, but a second portion of the ordinance is that you cannot have evidence of overlapping stays of less than monthly.

So in this case, our evidence here is this is our Granicus website.

This is what we use to track short-term rentals.

Uh, it snagged that there were two documented stays in March of 2026.

And here in the states, a little hard to see, but here it says it stayed for seven nights in March 2026 from a Jason B and a Valerie R stay for six nights in March of 2026.

Now, if you see in the letter, um, I have spoken at length with Mrs.

Petangell.

Um, we've had previous cases where they did update the mentally minimum listing, so she was aware of the short-term rental ordinance.

However, um, as TC is in the later one, she is not uh disputing the fact that she's in violation of the ordinance um due to the fact that she wasn't aware that even though it wasn't advertised as a short-term rental, she still had people paid to short-term rent.

So, like on the back end, basically, someone reached out and requested to stay for a shorter term, and they allowed them to pay for it.

So that's why the reviews are there for the shorter term.

It's a it makes it really hard to track down and keep track of short-term rentals.

But in this case, um, she does not dispute the fact that there was short-term rentals.

Um, her request is for a lower fine amount than what the city is requesting.

I inspector, can I interrupt just her first or second offense?

Uh technically, this is a first offense, the first, but this is I think my fourth short-term rental complaints, but this is the whole point.

Yes, on this particular property person.

So we really technically we've gone beyond the verse events.

Well, for uh legal purposes, this is the first case that's made at the court board.

All right.

So there is no compliance uh actions taken.

This is an incurable violation that happened in the past, so there is nothing to comply with.

So what the city is requesting is a one-time fine for the two documented overlapping stays in March of 2026 for the six-day and seven-day stays that are documented.

We're seeking a fine of a hundred dollars a day for a total fine of thirteen hundred dollars.

So when you if you the board agrees and you go to make your motion, this will be slightly different than what you normally say because we're not asking for recurring fine.

It would be the city is requesting a one-time fine of $1,300 payable within whatever the board would like to request.

Otherwise, then you'd read the rest of your uh script.

Okay, so to clarify, she's requesting that lien be reduced.

She's requesting less than $1,300 is what I uh gather from the letter.

And what does the city say about that?

Uh we're requesting $1,300.

Is that is that a normal amount of money that you would request from something like that?

Uh generally speaking, for most violations, especially first time, we pick 150 dollars a day recurring.

Uh in this case, she did reach back out, we spoke about it, she accepted fault.

I thought it was fair to do $100 a day, but obviously the fine is ultimately up to the board to set.

Okay.

Mr.

Salzman, can I confer with you for a second about the fines?

I just want to check a reading of the statute to see if you agree with me or not.

I was just perusing it as we were going over this case.

Stand by, Sarah.

Can I ask you a question while I say that?

Um you said that this was the first time that she's been caught doing it, and so this is the first time.

But has anybody ever reached out to her before about the other one?

I have spoken with her multiple times over the years regarding this.

We don't see that, but it's never been brought up here before.

Um the first case, when this initially came through, I basically spoke with her, I gave her a compliance date that complied within the combined state, so it never made it to a board hearing because they did voluntarily comply.

Oh, okay.

The other times it was more of the neighbor says they're short-term running, but I don't have any evidence of short-term running, so unfortunately it's a no-violation case for us if I have no evidence.

That's a good question.

So this is the first one that's made it to the board.

Um, traditionally, we are looking to prevent further short-term rental.

Um, but in this case, this is a property that has been reported multiple times, and this is the evidence that we have, so this is what we're seeking.

So if it happens again, inspector, will it be a second offense?

I believe it would be a repeat violation, yes.

Okay.

So to clear my understanding on it, um you had cases before, but on this property for the same thing, but it never made it to the board.

Correct.

All right.

So would it be fair to say that the owner of the property was informed and knew what the what uh the rules were, so to speak.

I believe the misunderstanding is that she did not have the monthly minimum set to below monthly, so she thought it would be okay to have people say if it wasn't long as long as it wasn't advertised as monthly.

So you know, there's lots of interpretations.

I think this $13 out of a dollar or five should wake her up a little bit.

You know, if it happens again, it's gonna be much more.

What is our daily rate in her churn?

Uh I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I imagine more than what we're requesting.

Hey, Sarah, I do apologize with for this because I was getting familiar with the statutes again this morning because I haven't looked at them in a while since I'm back in business over here.

Um, but I do think we might want to consider modifying our request here.

Okay.

Um, since this is a first violation, the statute says that we have to set a fine for an amount specified in the section for each day.

The violation continues past the date set by the enforcement board for compliance.

So they would have to set a compliance date, and then the file would go into effect after that since this is a first violation.

So what I would recommend that we modify request to be is to look for a declaration of violation here.

Um, unfortunately, I don't think we can go back and look for a fine for what's already been done for those particular days at this point.

So sorry about that.

Um, me and Mr.

Salzman were just speaking about that because he was a little bit um mixed up as well.

But that's what I would recommend to you at this time.

So I have a question then for Mr.

Sulzman, and would that mean that an appropriate action can't?

I'm sorry, yes.

Would it based on Mr.

Matt?

I'm sorry, I don't remember your last thing.

Nancy Medich.

Based on council's recommendations or his origination and reading of the law there.

Um would it be appropriate for us to continue with this or uh prefer not to hear it or give it back to the city and ask them to modify their request?

Well, we would expect the request to be a declaration of violation so that there's established in case there's a repeat, which can go up to $500 per day.

Um the statute requires you to make a finding and then give it a chance for people to come in compliance.

So that's what Matt and I were talking about.

All right, so we should it would be appropriate for us to to uh do a first motion and rule yes.

Declaration of violation, they're in compliance as far as we know right now.

Okay, this one right now page two is that something that would be done before you we have six violations in towns found in our favor previously for cases like this, but I will defer to counsel.

Okay, so we would we would be making our standard declaration of violation, counsel.

We would be making our standard declaration violation.

All right, may I have that uh motion, please?

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

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

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

The violation continues to exist.

I have a second.

Second, all in favor?

Aye, all opposed, motion carries.

Counsel, Mr.

Salzman.

Um do we uh take any further action on this for us of assessing the fine that's been requested?

No further action.

Okay, and then uh just for my own education, if I may, what happens at this point?

Does the does the city bring back a uh a request in the future for the fine or only if there's a repeat violation?

Right, okay, very good.

And then that could be $500 per day.

The difference is on the repeat violation.

If you establish the dates that they were in violation, you don't have to give them a time period to come in compliance.

So exactly how they proposed this.

If it was a repeat violation, you could have gone five hundred dollars per day for each one of those days.

So that is significant.

This is basically a one-time shot at you were found in violation.

You didn't, you're you know, you need to make sure you don't do it again.

Very good.

So if your system finds it again for that thing, then we can sign them five later today.

Okay.

This letter can just lock down.

Yeah, that was shorty on their side.

All right.

So I believe that that's all we're doing with this case then.

Yes, sir.

All right, thank you, Inspector Grace.

I have an ex one too.

Say again?

I have an X12.

Okay.

Um I'm looking at uh item agenda 3.13 has Inspector Mattox on it.

Are you covering for him?

Uh 3.12, Chair.

So it is all right.

Agenda item 3.12, case 114-26.

Fine respondents Eric and Amanda Earhart at 819 Lantana Avenue in violation of code for short-term rental 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, come forward, please.

Yeah, sir.

Would you come to the podium and give us your name and address in relation to the property?

One one second.

Were you sworn in, sir?

Yes, at the beginning, yeah.

Thank you.

Thanks for that.

Sure, Bob Burge uh and I live at uh 814 Narcissus Avenue in Clearwater Beach.

Uh when we just wanted to kind of from a homeowner standpoint when we bought our property, we did our homework, we had been on the beach before, we moved into this new property.

And I'm gonna interrupt you, sir.

We're gonna I'm gonna interrupt you so that we can follow our standard process.

Sure.

Okay.

What's your relation to the property?

Are you a neighbor?

Neighbor.

Okay.

Very good.

What we typically do, our process is we're gonna hear from the inspector.

Okay.

Uh once we get your information, so on and so forth.

Um, and then uh once we've heard from the inspector, we'll invite you to give us additional information, and then we'll proceed.

All right, thanks.

Thank you very much.

Uh board, this is the same scenario as the last one, so seeing as how we got a declaration of violation for the last case, that's what we'll be seeking for this one as well.

If you'd like to hear from the neighbor before you give that order.

All right, thank you very much.

That was short and sweet.

What would you like to share with us, sir?

Okay, well, thanks.

Uh kind of from a homeowner standpoint.

So we we had uh bought our property on Narcissus Avenue, having been in another part of the island, and saw that you know what short-term rentals can do.

There's there's you know the good and the bad that goes with that.

So we did our homework, there was no short-term rentals anywhere around where we where we live.

So that's made it was a big part of our decision.

And if you look at the the costs involved, those are you know big financial decisions for families.

So it wasn't long when we got in there.

We could the property behind us, you could tell what was happening there, and it's very easy to spot.

I mean, people come in on a weekend, then they leave.

You look at the license plates, they're from all over the place, different people, different, you know, and and then the noise, the late at night.

You know, if you're typically a you know, midnight on a Wednesday, it's a quiet area, but not always, and and that's how the the short-term rentals sometimes can pop up.

So we we uh and talking to variety of neighbors, people were getting very, very upset, and um we had contacted the the city here, uh, and I did want to make a comment about I think the work that Sarah Green does is very, very commendable and very much appreciated.

So she became kind of our you know, did her job, and and what we're finding on these short-term rentals, because my wife then does the uh inspector role of her own.

Um these ads are placed for 30-day rentals, and there's certain days of the week for two or three hour period, they change it.

And guess what?

It's such an in-demand that people will fill it up then, and then it's changed back to 30 days, and there's a there's a whole game on the different sites on how they can beat beat the system.

So you know, the from our perspective, we've never we've met the homeowners once, and that's been two or three years ago, and I think it was and then they got hit by the storm.

So there's these from our view, there's these violations clearly occurring, and I think just from the previous violation, you just I think there's a big difference on the money that's flowing on the rentals on the beach versus that last example that you had.

Thousands of dollars are coming in.

So I know you mentioned when you mentioned that you know, $500 a day fine.

It it does take fines with some substance versus a fine.

Hey, 130 dollar fine.

If I'm bringing in thousands of dollars a day and thousands and thousands of dollars a week, I don't care.

So, but I think you also got to keep in mind the homeowners and the people around that are being impacted by these clear violations of that.

And uh so all we're looking for is peace and quiet, and we're very thankful for this process.

So that's it.

Any questions?

Yes, sir.

Sure.

Uh, how long have you been observing this for the we moved the this coming March?

We will have been on in that in this property four years uh coming in March coming up, and it was pretty quick.

I mean, it was within a couple months, it got our attention, the different people coming in, and you know, and again, we we got kids and grandkids.

First thing they do is go to the pool, and our pools you know are right behind each other, and we don't mind that.

I don't know, I don't mind kids at playing at all, but when it's you know in violation of code and it's being done, and then they you know they're looking at ways to get around the code, and then we're even discovering what those are uh and there's you know, there's people are sending me now examples.

People are doing reviews of these properties that are 30-day properties, they're doing reviews.

Hey, we had a great time on Airbnb reviews, we had a great time on our three-day stay this weekend.

I mean, it's it's the the evidence is real obvious.

These are not residents, these are in violation, and they're not 30-day minimums.

So we appreciate uh what you guys do and any other questions?

Sure.

Yeah, Bob, have you been able to talk to your neighbor about this?

No, because they're never there.

I mean, that that's the problem.

Okay.

So and then we do, you know, we do, you know, you hate to be like creepy, but you you know, you look at the cars in the driveway, and it's it's just different all the time.

It's very, very obvious.

And then my wife went online and she said, here's what's happening.

These are in such demand because the the dollars that flow are in the thousands and thousands of dollars that if you get on and you change the 30 days to a daily fee, people are gonna come on during that, you know, they find out when the high traffic time is for Airbnb or the hundreds of other sites, and then they can beat the system, and that's what we're trying to do.

If your neighbor who reps these out, uh he or she lives out of town or out of the state.

Uh I don't know that.

I don't know that inspectors.

Sarah might know that.

Yeah.

What was your name again?

Uh last name is Burge, B I R G E Bob Burge.

Bird.

Okay.

Any other questions for Mr.

Byrd?

I have a couple for the inspector.

Thank you, sir.

I appreciate it.

Again, thanks to all of you.

Thank you, Mr.

Byrd.

So when was uh when did this case first start?

Um this is another one very similar to the last case where um they've had multiple complaints over the years, but I was never able to catch it being less than monthly.

Um this case specifically started in May, actually just a couple weeks after the previous one, which is an odd timing for two in a row, but there you go.

I sent the notice was sent and posted on May 12th, and this one had four documented stays, two in April, two in March.

So I'm receiving a declaration for it now.

All right.

Council, uh, based on our previous one, I just want to clarify and make sure we're just doing a standard violation.

Standard declaration and first and second motions.

No.

First motion.

It's a motion finding in by in violation, but uh corrected prior.

So it's a declaration of it.

Well, that brings the question.

Is it been corrected?

Yeah, okay.

All right.

So we're doing the same thing we did on the last case.

Yes.

All right, very good.

May I have a motion, please?

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

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

Is the respondent repeats the violation?

The board may order a fine of up to 500 for each day the violation continues to exist.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector.

All right.

Next item on our agenda 3.14 case 116-26 fine respondents.

Victory 888 ink.

How about how about case 313?

Did I miss another one?

Yeah, I did.

All right, let's do 3.13.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Engel.

You're welcome.

Case 115-26 fine respondents SCI Pelican Walk LLC at 486.

Avenue in violation of the code for outdoor cafe permit.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Inspector Maddox, you have the floor.

Good afternoon.

Kevin Maddox, Clearwater Code Compliance Inspector.

This is for uh case number 115-26 for 486 Poinsettia Avenue.

This will be a little bit different than what you've heard before.

Uh, this has to do with an outdoor cafe seating permit that's expired.

Um recent months, I've been working with a whole lot of business owners who are required to have this permit when you have seating in the right-of-way owned by the city of Clearwater for liability purposes.

Somebody gets hurt, they needs to go to the uh owners.

So this is code section 3-909 C6 for an outdoor seating cafe permit that is expired.

Notice violation was sent and posted on April 2nd, 2026, compliance date by 5-6 of 2026, and the green card was not received back.

This just shows that uh at this location here is the seating that does in fact exist and requires a seating permit.

This is something they uh do for an entire year, and as soon as uh about the end of September, they have to get it renewed.

So uh this along with about 30 odd other businesses are uh getting these permits.

This just shows the posting.

This also shows that as of uh today that they did not have a permit.

This is our a sell of computer showing there's no permit yet, and it has to go through an application process with zoning.

Today I took this picture because in the end result, you can either get a permit or remove all of this.

It is still in existence.

Compliance can be met for the outdoor cafe permit required by contacting the city of Clearwater zoning at the phone number, apply for the updated or update your permit, have it successfully approved and paid for compliance.

Can also be met by removing all tables and chairs and material from the city of Clearwater sidewalk right away.

Um for 115-26 uh requesting compliance on or before July 24, 2026, or a fine of $50 per day for each violation uh that this continues to exist.

The $50 is requested instead of the 150 due to the nature of the very small cost of a permit.

So uh $50 was agreed upon.

Inspector, have you been in touch with the owners about the permit?

I have never gotten anyone to contact me, although I tried and to open a door.

You had to remove this because I put it across the door so that you had to see it.

And no one's called you or anything.

No, and they have not contacted zoning.

That's unusual.

Is that this would that be interpreted to mean that they've not applied for a permit?

Uh I have had to weekly stay in touch with zoning to say, and and there's also a spreadsheet that we communicate with.

Uh and I've said I'm about ready to go to code board.

Have you had any phone call, any activity?

No.

Okay.

And they've been renewing year after year, but yet they didn't this year.

Um this is something that from my understanding started up again to make sure that these are all in compliance and permits.

Um, and and as I've been contacting every single person on the list, there's a lot of uh, of course, they don't want to lose their seating.

Yeah, and and so they get right on it and get the application filled out and pay the permit, which is very minimal.

And the business is open.

Uh to my understanding, yes, it is.

Okay.

How's the last thing?

It might be a uh it might be a restaurant that opens at four o'clock about the time I'm going home.

So I don't see people there, but um, there's a lot of night restaurants on the beach as well.

Yeah, well, I'm sure it's still up and they would move everything back inside.

There that's the two different ways that you could do it.

Yeah, okay.

I'm sorry, you said something about September?

Uh once you create a permit, uh-huh, it's good for a year.

Okay.

At the end of September, they're all required to renew.

Okay.

So it hasn't gone in violation yet, or it's been in violation since last September.

It's been in violation.

Uh, I believe the last permit that was at this location was a prior restaurant.

Oh, and then as they came into this location as a tenant, they never obtained a permit.

Okay.

So you won't compliance by July 24th, right?

Yes, which would in that one month would give you time to walk in, fill out an application, and pay a fee.

Okay.

Okay.

So then no matter what, if they get a permit, it's going to expire in September of this year.

Is that right?

Correct.

Okay.

Is it the same price to meet or what?

I don't know.

Let me clarify.

You said no.

Okay.

Sorry.

Um, there is no permit in place now.

Uh it's a new business, did not obtain a permit.

If they get a permit now, are you saying that it expires in September?

They'll have to renew it then.

I'm a little confused.

Uh it doesn't, it's not an expiration as such, it's more of a renewal of the current permit.

Okay.

The the permit cost is uh I believe less than a hundred dollars.

I it's probably 35 to 50 dollars.

So it's much like a business tax receipt.

You have an annual renewal.

Yes.

Okay.

And we're back on the Rebecca has uh something to offer.

Rebecca Mulder.

Uh not co-compliance manager, assistant director of planning and development.

I just wanted to clarify if you had any questions specific to the actual outdoor cafe process for getting approval through our planning department.

I can clarify any of those questions specific to that process, but it is much like the business tax receipt process in which you have to get permission because it's on our right-of-way.

We need to vet that there's insurance for safety purposes.

We need to ensure the seating location layout is approved annually.

Um, and then there is a nominal fee that they pay associated with that.

I have a question.

He mentioned that that or that regulation itself was paused for a while, and then now it's picked up or it's always been a requirement of the city, or at least since I think the ordinance went through in 2019, somewhere in that 2020, as a response to allow um business owners in the downtown area and beach area that have the ability to utilize the right-of-way during co COVID winds to provide outdoor seating or spacing, things like that.

So it was an um adopted around that time, night 2019-2020.

And um, so it's been a these requirements have been in place, and we've worked with the business owners over these last several years, and there's been some there's been a lot of outreach over those years to work with those business owners to ensure that they get into compliance and stay in compliance, and so the we try not to have to take the business owners to code board and have given more than more than enough grace along the last several years, and we're getting to a place where we've set an expectation of compliance, and we're starting to move forward with that if they don't.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, no questions from the board question.

I have a question.

Is it permit required of the tenant or the property owner?

Ultimately, it's the parcel owner.

Uh I mean the tenant would be the one applying for it.

The parcel owner would be responsible for this failure.

So who gets the fine?

The parcel owner.

And we haven't been able to get a hold of the parcel owner.

Uh everything's been posted as required.

And no, I have not received anything from the owner.

Is there a requirement in the application for the permit that there be some representation of the property owner is aware of the application and that they agree to it?

I don't understand.

If I if I'm the the restaurant and I apply for I apply for a permit, is there anything in the permit that requires knowledge and agreement of the property owner?

I don't know.

The answer is yes.

The property interest is sign off.

Okay.

And if I'm not mistaken, when you send notice of violation, that goes to the property owner.

Yes.

And if the property owner gets that and is aware of it, then with that data, they can call the tenant to discuss the handle, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Ultimately, property owner's responsibility for the activities that occur at the property, regardless of whether there's a tenant or not.

And bring all code cases against the property owner.

That's the only one you could get compliance of.

Right.

Understood.

Mr.

Salisman, am I allowed to ask the name of this restaurant?

Yeah, I think it was it was in the picture.

It's Seoul Mediterranean, I believe.

So Mediterranean.

Okay, so you uh any other questions from the board?

I guess just do when you sent the violation.

Did you send it to the address of the violation or the address of the owner?

All violations are sent to the address of the parcel owner in uh Pinellas County property appraiser.

So whatever's listed for that specific address.

In this case, it's a very large building with many tenants, but it still goes to the same address for the parcel owner.

Okay.

So from one from what I am gathering, the the parcel owner did have this permit prior to this particular tenant meeting in uh in there.

The prior tenant tenant or permit.

The uh permit to the knowledge of the owner, I don't know.

I'm I'm just stating what had happened a couple years ago from the prior tenant.

That's why the seating still remained there, but the new tenant sole did not obtain a permit for the outdoor seating cafe.

Okay, thank you.

Just to clarify, if a tenant wants to apply for a permit through the city, the owner has to give written permission on the permit, or else the tenant cannot apply.

Yes, property owner's permission has to be obtained.

Just like any kind of development application they have at the city.

You can have the property owner signal.

Right.

All right.

Any other questions?

Maybe a first motion, please.

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

Second.

All in favor?

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 July 24th, 2026.

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $50 per day per violation for each day.

Each violation continues to exist.

If fines and fees remain on paid 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?

All opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector.

I'm next.

Yes, sir.

I see that.

Item 3.14.

Case 116-26 fine respondents victory 888 incorporated at 604 Heart Street.

In violation of code for outdoor storage and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Sir, come forward, please.

Sir, were you sworn in?

Yeah, I don't know.

Okay, let's uh if you'll just raise your right hand.

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

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Can you give us your name and address in relation to the property?

I'm the tenant.

Um my landlord uh encouraged me to come in today whites hold Kevin.

I wasn't going to, but um could you just state your name?

Chris Steiner.

Christopher Steiner.

Thank you.

I'm the tenant.

My landlord's up in New York.

So I just had a couple two questions to get clarification on how to remedy it and make sure I don't get any warnings in the future.

Okay, and before we go there, um, we're gonna follow our procedure.

We're gonna go ahead from the inspector and let him tell us what he knows, and then we'll have you back up, sir.

All right.

Thank you.

Inspector Maddox.

Kevin Maddox, Clearwater Code Compliance Inspector, case number 11626 for 604 Heart Street.

There's one violation for 31503 V6 outdoor storage.

Notice of violation was mailed.

This started in uh just my what was that address you just said?

604 Heart out.

I'd started working with this back in January, but the uh first notice of violation was February 10th and 26th.

No divine uh notice of violation was posted on 424 of 26 compliance date by 57 of 2026, and I'd been interacting with uh Chris the tenant, so uh things had started to progress, but then uh failed, so it continued into a notice of violation.

The uh green card was not received then.

Um this is the backyard of of the house.

Uh a couple different pictures from April 24th.

Um, this is the front of the house where the notice was placed.

Um from the side of the house, there's an empty lot to the left as you're looking at the house where you can view uh more of this in the back.

Uh this was on the 7th of May.

Uh nothing had changed, and it seemed to have increased in the amount that I had seen there.

Um, this is around the side, but this is in the back as of today.

If I can get it to click forward.

I'm just waiting on the slide.

All right.

So I don't know if I gotta click out of it or what.

Are these pictures from today?

These two are today.

Wow.

Okay.

I'm clicking, but I'm not getting anywhere.

And that's all in the back of the house.

Yes.

There you go.

So we're talking a junkyard here.

Uh it's filled.

Is it an apartment building?

Uh I believe there's three apartments.

This is um uh appears to there's a stairwell in the back, and the tenant can tell you otherwise, but I believe there's uh access to the top floor, which would be the second apartment or third apartment.

I just wasn't really sure how many were in there.

Okay.

Um compliance can be met by clearing all discarded and unused materials, junk, construction.

So I don't exactly know what all of it is underneath the sheets of plastic.

Um I had been told that some of it was plants, others, but you know, in the pictures, I can see a lot of just trash and junk that uh should not be in a backyard and would be considered an outdoor storage problem.

Would you trap rown ups and other creditors?

Yes.

Uh it it would invite quite a bit of problems in the area.

Uh requesting compliance for exterior storage on or before July 24, 2026, or a fine of 150 dollars per day for each violation that it continued to exist.

Uh, as an added note, I did receive a phone call uh a couple days ago from the owner who's in New York, and I asked him to contact the tenant and turn on the video and see what you saw.

Uh as of today, I was on the phone with him.

He didn't seem to understand what was truly going on, so I sent him the pictures that I took today in his email today, and he said he was on his way to uh Florida on a flight to address the issue.

I I don't know what he was going to do.

I just know that he was due to be coming down here to handle it.

Well, thank you and send him the pictures.

Yeah.

Questions from the board.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Spector.

Mr.

Steiner.

What would you like to tell us about all this?

Oh, I don't want to say too much.

I mean, I you could see in the photo there's a shed that's built, and another shed that I told Kevin yesterday that well, I'd updated him.

I've been updating them about building these two sheds, possibly a third.

Under a hundred square foot, I understand, to be in compliance without having to get a permit.

And um, you know, so I updated them yesterday.

I have one shed built, and you can see that on the right side of the uh photo uh for today, and um the other one I have the plot laid out.

Um couldn't get to it uh building it because I of technical issues um but uh in um I I just had a couple questions um just for clarification and uh wanted to know if there's a limit to the number of outdoor items um that are in good working order that can be kept outside, like by I'm mainly concerned about bicycles, they need to be covered so the lubrication doesn't rinse off in the rain in the ball bearings for the wheels and the crankshaft so that um you know they don't need to be repacked with grease before you ride them again, and you can strip the bearings if you don't repack them with grease um if they are exposed to the rain.

And those those types of questions as far as what you can do when you can't do are not in our purview.

Our our job here is to take a look at what's been going on and make rulings on that in terms of what you can do and what's appropriate and what's not appropriate and what's required for compliance, and we'd uh ask you to speak with your code enforcement officer about that to gain an understanding of what needs to be done and get a clarity on that, and with that you should be able to accomplish what needs to be done.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Steiner, we're talking more than bicycles here.

I have a bicycle, I keep it inside, but we're talking a lot more than bicycles in that yard.

Right.

That's jobs and that's why I got the sheds.

So I have three sheds, and one is built and or almost built.

That's the one you saw.

I just haven't put the roof on it and the back wall.

Um then you haven't built a shed.

If you have no roof, there's no shed.

They're covered.

Why would you not put a roof on it?

In a hurry to build the second shed, but like I said, I had technical problems.

A drill bit broke yesterday.

I would these sheds have holes that are misplaced, so you have to drill your own, and my drill bit broke yesterday.

So I couldn't build it um in a hurry to try to prepare for today's meeting and hopefully get everything squared away.

Um, but that's why I try to hurry.

Um you didn't see in the photo the other plot where I have the shed laid out or the the the lumber laid out.

Because of everything else.

Well, I'd be glad to show you, but it's not important.

Well, okay.

Well, I I'm just sure.

Um I guess in my case, since you can't answer my questions, I would just ask for continuance until July 24th, and considering that um I called again this morning to code enforcement found there's no limit to the number of outdoors.

I'd be glad to play the recording of the uh code enforcement enforcement saying there's no limit to the number of outdoor items that can be covered.

So I have been in a misunderstanding here with a lot of I know there are there's this organization, but I've been in a misunderstanding, and right now it is in a state of upheaval because I was trying to build the sheds to in time for approval before this meeting today.

And and um I was also told this morning that uh there was uh a case for the uh the code prohibiting disorderly the term disorderly, and could not provide me the code.

I asked uh he said he'd get the code enforcement officer or inspector to get back to me on that as well as a question of that.

Um I was told yesterday by Kevin that you can have outdoor table, but this is just one example of trying to understand the code.

I was told you could have an outdoor Kevin told me I could have an outdoor table, just not many of them.

And I would like to know if if I have many bikes, is there a limit, or is it the discretion?

I asked the code enforcement officer to get back to me.

Is it is it as to the discretion of the inspector, or is there a threshold in the code?

Well, I couldn't turn unicode.com.

But those issues should be addressed with both the code enforcement officer and the building permitting uh folks.

Uh it's all good data, and I don't want to I don't necessarily want to cut you short, but those items are not for our review or understanding or anything else.

It's our job to look at what you have there and um help guide this thing in a direction so that it can get corrected for everybody.

Okay.

And so any any questions you have about what you can have outside, how many sheds you can have, what's permitted, what's not permitted, and that entire process in terms of getting in compliance and understanding that can be gained by talking with Mr.

Maddox, your code compliance officer, and then again the building department.

Uh so I would steer you in that direction.

Um what the city's asking for here is they're requesting compliance on or before July 24th.

Uh the question I have for you is I think you said earlier you think you can get your sheds done by then and get stuff cleaned up.

Is that is that correct?

If I understand how to remedy it, because I do have the bicycles and some other items that are for outdoor use.

Clearly, they're for uh gardening and other things outdoor, other authorities that I have that are in good working order and good shape.

They're clean and got you.

So, in other words, you can't.

Excuse me.

In other words, you can't comply by July 24.

That's what you're really saying.

I think you said he doesn't have to be able to do that.

I believe I can have three sheds.

I would like to save the expenditure of time and Monday so I can understand how to not have a violation again.

I just got a seven-day notice from my landlord, and he believes that I have been put in violation now, which means that if I get a second, I will not have a second seventh-day notice.

He can instantly evict me.

And so I would like to understand the situation, or if you'd just like to give me until the 24th, and I'll do my best to understand uh as I I've never as I have in the past, because I never would have put things under tarps if I have any suspicion that they would have not been allowed, and I want to know if there's a limit, like I said, and uh did the code inspector explain that to you yesterday.

I was again, I was told yesterday that there's a limit to outdoor tables I could have, and those are not covered.

So I want to understand what the limit is, and of course it looks awful now.

I don't want it this way.

Um can I ask you a question?

I'm in a hurry at the moment.

It's an apartment building, and there's multiple people who live in it, or is it just you who lives there?

It's my I'm mine on the top floor, so my entrance is through the back.

So I know it's not presentable for guests either.

That's what I don't like.

Well, if there's many people who live in the apartment building, then everybody should have be able to use the backyard.

Is it all your stuff back there?

I'm uh given the backyard, and then the little neighbor downstairs gets the side here.

Okay, so it's all your stuff basically.

Right.

You're responsible for all of it, essentially.

Correct.

Okay, all right, fair enough.

How many sheds are you planning to build to cover for everything that you have in this backyard?

Well, I have two.

I have the one that's built, I have the other one that you might have seen in the photos, or I can show you the receipts.

Um the other one is in boxes, uh, mostly in boxes that just propped up against the back wall of the building this morning.

So these two boxes that come from.

Now, if I if I have my dimensions right with these sheds without having a permit, because there's a in a size of correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe all that stuff you have there will fit in those sheds that you plan on putting there.

So, what are you gonna do with the remaining of the things that are won't fit in the sheds, or do you plan on putting X amount of sheds?

Well, either has to or it gets thrown away or sold, but there is a lot of empty space underneath the tarps because I'm an online merchant and I pull things out to sell and I don't reorganize, so there's a lot of space under the tarp stuff.

But all your sheds don't have roots.

That's right.

Oh, yeah, sheds.

They do.

Well ago, you said they did they do.

I just haven't done the first, I haven't completed the first shed, like I said, to hurry to get it.

Then all your sheds don't have roofs.

If you haven't completed I may have roofs.

Board, I'm gonna step in here as well.

No, wait a minute.

I have a right to ask that.

I'm confused.

Well, let's uh first he you built sheds.

Do any of them have roofs?

Well, they have them.

I haven't assembled a single shed completely yet, as I said.

They have the roof, but they're not assembled.

Right.

Okay.

It'll take me about a day and a half to do a shed now that I you know to do the next shed, and then if I need the third one, that's what I was getting at.

Yeah, no sheds.

Okay.

So three sheds.

Excuse me, board.

I'm gonna step in here.

I think we've spent enough time on this one.

In terms of our job here is I mean, we can ask a number of questions to gain a deeper understanding, but I think we've got enough data here to to make motions and rule on this and move on.

We have other cases to hear, and so I don't want to step on anybody's toes necessarily, but uh, I think we can move forward.

We just want clarity, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

All right, thank you for your consideration.

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.

Aye.

All opposed?

Motion carries.

May have a second motion, please.

I move to enter an order required to the respondent in order to in order to correct the violations on or before July 24th.

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

Each violation continues to exist.

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

May I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you for coming today, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, Inspector Meddox, for that one.

That's a tough one.

Next case 3.15 on our agenda according to Madam Secretary has been withdrawn.

This is yes.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

Number 3.16 on our agenda, case 118-26.

Find respondents for Clearwater Homeowners Association Inc.

at 4400 Brigadoon Circle.

In violation of code for exterior services, and issue an order with the compliance deadline and find if compliance is not met.

Inspector, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, board.

Jared Daniels, code inspector for the city of Clearwater.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

I'm coming this.

That's my wish on how about that this morning.

Okay.

So we have someone.

No, this was for the this.

I believe you were here for the previous case, which has been with 1901.

All right.

Yeah, we didn't.

Excellent.

Well, sorry, you had to sit through all that just to find it out, but thank you for coming.

I'm glad we made it interesting for you.

Thank you for coming.

All right.

Good afternoon, boy.

Jared Daniels.

Sorry, your interruption.

Do they send me a notice that it's all you will be sent something in the mail?

Yes.

Okay.

Oh no.

Good afternoon, board.

Inspector Daniels, co compliance officer for the city of Clearwater.

Case number 118-26 for 4400 Brigadoon Drive.

It's one violation at this property for exterior surfaces.

3-1502.b.

The notice was sent out for 825 with a compliance date of 52125.

And the certified mail receipt came back 5225.

If you look in the pictures, just a lot of rotten wood around the cazebo at the pool area.

These was the original pictures.

This was after the compliance date.

I just found that out once I posted the property.

So compliance can be met for the exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structures and decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, and fade in the pill and paint.

Requesting compliance on or before August 1st, 2026, or a daily fine of 150 dollars per violation if it's not in compliance.

As far as your requested date.

Yes.

Yes.

Well, like I say, when I talked to the property manager yesterday, I informed that she said it it will be done by the first of August.

Very good.

Questions from the board.

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.

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

May I have a second motion, please?

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

Uh 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 liens 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.

Item 3.17 has been continued.

Item 3.18 has been withdrawn.

Item 3.19, case 121-26 by respondents.

And issue an order with the compliance deadline to find if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Sir, please come forward.

Sir, I believe you were sworn in, were you not?

Yes.

Okay.

Can you give us your name and address in relation to the property?

My name is Philip, and I'm the owner of 908 Thailand Avenue.

Your last name?

Zelk.

Thank you.

Alrighty.

Thank you, sir.

We're gonna hear from the inspector, and then we'll call you back up to see what you have to tell us.

Okay.

Where is the full screen?

Okay, so that's right.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Andrew Hobbs, Code Compliance Inspector 1, case number 121-26 for 908 Evelyn Avenue.

One violation, Code Section 31407A4 for large commercial vehicles.

Notice violation was sent 319.

It was lost in transit.

Um so I sent it certified again on 428 as well as posted the property.

Uh the original compliance date was 422, was updated to 512.

Um the second certified mail came back 511.

This was a citizen complaint.

The citizen who filed the original complaint stated that the truck had been parked on the property every night, usually after 6 p.m., then leaves, then the truck leaves early in the morning.

The complainant sent pictures on these dates of the truck in the driveway overnight.

Those are all listed right here.

This is the truck in question in the driveway May 4th.

618.

Um we had discussed the measurements on the truck, so I had gone out and measured 84 inches from top to bottom is allowable.

Um it was at least 100 inches from the top of the truck after I um or when I measured it.

Uh this was this morning.

Uh the truck in question is right there in the driveway, but this other large truck was there as well.

Here's the truck that we are the one that I measured, the one that's in question.

Is that a commercial truck?

Yes.

Okay.

Are they the same company on both trucks?

They are not.

Um the United Air Conditioning truck has been the pictures that were provided by the neighbor.

There are pictures of that truck, both trucks in the driveway.

Um, so I believe they're both owned by the property owner.

Uh compliance can be met for violation by removing all large commercial vehicles from the property.

Request compliance on before seven seven or a fine of 150 dollars per day each day the violation exists.

Thank you.

Questions for the inspector.

Is this for both trucks or just no?

This is just the the two trucks were part of an original case back in December, and then the trucks disappeared.

We had actually spoken in person back then.

Trucks disappeared, I closed the case, and then all these emails started coming in from a neighbor.

Um, so I had to reopen the case, and then you know, our hand was forced after that.

So uh I hadn't seen the large truck there in quite some time, and then just happened as it just happened to be this morning.

Um then neighbor says primarily after 6 p.m.

They're showing back uh yeah, yeah, yeah.

Inspector, have you spoken with uh the uh our represent representative here today recently?

Yeah, yeah.

We've spoken.

Explain to him what the violation is.

Okay, forget that.

Yeah, I mean I we had spoken about it, and I I mean I offered code for as an option to say his piece, and he wanted to come.

Excellent.

All right.

Sir, what would you like to tell us?

Okay, so I'm the owner, I'm not the owner, but my responsibility is the truck in the driveway.

That's the forest there.

The big truck is responsibility of my brother.

So we both live together, and we both do air conditioning.

And the big truck, we know the whole situation started with the big truck.

And we removed the big truck from the property.

It just happened to have to be there this morning, but it's not there every day, like the inspector said, it hasn't been there for like six, seven months since December.

Last night, my brother, my brother got late with the job, so he was forced to park there just for six hours overnight, and he left by seven in the morning.

So that truck, I agreed to uh inspector, and we removed that truck from the property, the big truck that was there in the in the street.

So, but the other truck is responsible by me.

So to be able to do this job, I need transportation to work.

And I don't have any other choice except to use that truck that the company gave me.

And like I said, I talked to the inspector, and the truck I pull in all the way to my driveway.

It's not in front of everybody, anybody's house.

And I would just like to men to the inspector to mention that I talked to the neighbors who sent the complaints, and we talked about the truck that is there every night, which is mine, and they sent a letter to the inspector that is saying that it doesn't bother them anymore after I talk to them.

Okay.

I appreciate that.

I will tell you that our standard is and our reference point on all of this when we look at these things and make whatever decisions we make is whatever's in the the our reference point is is the code, the building code and the state statute and so on and so forth.

And so it's our duty and obligation to follow that.

I understand that your neighbors may have a problem, but that's not the standard by which we conduct our business.

And while I'm sympathize with you about your work situation, everything else, the code is the code and it's there for a reason and so on and so forth.

So we're bound to follow that.

Okay.

Um we have questions or comments from the board.

I think it's in reference.

Uh I think the problem is size of your truck, is that right?

Inspector, the overall size of it.

Uh good afternoon, Sarah Green Co-Manager.

Uh the parking code does reference for between the principal structure and the right-away.

So in this case, can you hear me?

Um, in this case, the between the principal structure and the right-away, that would be the driveway.

Uh, you're not allowed any commercial vehicle which measures an excess of 20 feet in total chassis, body length, seven feet in total width and height.

So that would be the issue.

It's a commercial vehicle over seven feet in height.

So that is seats, those two matches.

Okay.

Okay, and you understand that, Mr.

Zow.

Yes, I understand.

And that's why we wanted to actually measure the truck with the inspector.

And the truck has not exceed the width or either the the length.

It's only the height.

The height.

Which that's the reason why.

And I talked to the inspector.

If we would go all around clear water, we can find so many commercial vehicles that are higher than seven feet.

I'm not gonna, I'm not, you know, starting anything, any case, but even in my neighborhood, there's been some other situations where people have trucks higher than seven feet.

And my truck, and I really need to get this sold because I don't have any other option.

We understand, yeah.

But unfortunately, your case is the warrant is here, not the others.

Okay.

Correct.

Say that again.

It's your case this year.

Yeah, it is my case, but I'm just trying to solve the problem, you know.

But I'm saying if you the problem is the height.

Yes.

So that's still out of bounds for the code.

Right.

I understand.

In our in our world, the I mean, we're as Mr.

Engels said, we're we're bound by the uh the the violations the height of the truck, and those those that's established, and that's our reference point.

Well, again, while I might sympathize with you, your needs and your work situation, and the fact that you don't have a solution in place.

We're still bound to to base our decision on what the code says, and and the fact that it's now before us where that's that's what we do.

And until that code is changed, SCP, we have no choice.

I mean, I talked to the inspector, and I don't know if he mentioned if there's any way to make uh some kind of how would I say uh exception?

Exception for it since the truck is not.

I understand the truck is you know, it's not like I'm trying to bring anything huge and I'm trying to do something.

It's one foot over, it's about eight feet up the code is seven feet.

So I want to see if there's any uh exception that we can do to get this resolved.

And I would like so in order to this, I would like to bring up again a letter that the neighbors who complained they sent to the inspector for the truck that's the bit that's been in driveway that they said it doesn't bother them, and then that one is fine.

So understood.

And I I I would defer to council, but I don't believe that that is a is uh is a valid argument for making an exception based on and and in terms of exceptions.

Uh I know inspectors have latitude in terms of whether or not they bring a case.

Um in our experience when in inspectors have uh worked with various property owners in resolving issues.

Sometimes they will delay bringing the case, but when it's time for them to bring it, then they bring it.

And unfortunately, once it's it's before us and it's on our agenda, it's up to us to make a ruling and deal with the case.

So any time for exceptions or doing something before it comes is now has now passed.

And so it's our job to look at this thing and determine whether or not there's a violation there, and then number two, uh, make a ruling on uh something being done with it.

And that's the position we're in as the board.

Yeah, and our hands are tied, we have no latitude on that.

The reason why I mind mentioning the letter from the neighbor is because, like I said, there's tons of vehicles in clear wood higher than seven feet.

And when I say that, I talk to the inspector, and as long as there's no complaints, those vehicles are fine.

In my situation, I understand the neighbor complained.

And if I talk to the neighbor, if I resolve the problem with the neighbor and he doesn't complain, can we do an uh what's it coming?

Exception because the neighbor is not complaining anymore.

No, we're we're beyond that.

Yeah, Mr.

Doug, you're not realizing you say there's tons of others, probably are, but they're in violation too.

That's true, you say they're just not in force if they just wake up, you know.

Exactly.

So you're trying to sell it, right?

Yeah.

You said you're trying to sell the truck?

No, no, no.

No, no, no.

The truck I use for work, it's not my truck, it's a company truck.

And they let me use it to take it home since I don't have my own car to use it as transportation.

Can they give you a shorter truck?

That's a good question.

Yeah, that's uh that's a good question.

I think I think for our purposes, again, I I understand that you're looking for an exception, but we're not in a position to do that.

The case is before us, and it's like you can say you can be driving down a fast highway where the speed limit is 60 miles an hour, everybody's doing 80.

Everybody's violating, but it's only only probably only one or two people that get caught.

But that does not eliminate the fact that everybody else is in violation.

The fact is your case is before us today, and because of that, and because it's it's on our agenda, we're obligated to to make a ruling on it and make a decision on the case.

Do you need is it do you need more time to get maybe uh different transportation um coordinated?

Or with your employer, right?

Well, I can I try to do, you know, to get a diff different transportation means to me to buy another vehicle to go to break and that, which is not an easy, it's not a one month, it's you know, I don't know when I would be able to afford that.

You know, well, I mean, in this situation, that's your only option right now, right?

Unless you you're able to remove the truck by July 7th.

If you're not able to do that, but you are in the works of getting a transportation coordinated, then maybe as a council we can talk about maybe extending uh the due date on it, right?

But if if if you're not giving us any options on maybe some type of transportation that you can get other than the truck itself, yeah.

If you're gonna look to sell it, they might want to give you more time, long story short.

Yeah, right.

Yeah, I definitely need more time.

Does your company even know that truck is uh in violation?

Well, they know, but uh as I mean, you know too.

Most of the commercial vehicles are higher than seven feet, so we don't have much choice.

I don't have much choice to work with them.

I'm thankful for them to letting me you know using that, so I don't have to I don't know, buy another vehicle to go to bring it back.

So company-wise, I can't really do much is there anywhere else that he can park the truck on the property that is one okay.

Like sometimes you can do it behind a fence that's like you know, like if you have an RV that's so big or a bowl.

The truck has been parked all the way to my driveway, and it doesn't uh like I said, since the length, it's not it's not exceeding, so it's not even blocking the sidewalk.

Well, again, sir, that's not the issue.

I think the issue is your your truck height, and that's what we're here to rule on.

Yes.

I believe Mr.

Plum has a suggestion.

I think we move on with a motion for 8126 for him to give him time to give something sorted out.

Okay.

Um Inspector, do you have anything else to add on everything you've heard before we uh motion?

No.

I mean, we we we discussed options.

Um this was kind of like our last.

I actually wanted to see if you guys could come up with something.

Because I mean, we we we talked about it.

I'm like, can you leave it at home depot right there off of um Druid?

It's up through it.

Um e-bikes, whatever, like we talked about it, and I'm just like, I don't, I mean, the code's code, I don't have anything else to suggest.

I'm like, it is what it is when you boil it down all the way.

Um you think about extending the compliance?

It's not hurting me.

If you guys, I mean, take what time you need.

I I don't know.

This is all this is all gotten to this point because of the the emails that I was getting from neighbors.

Yeah, um, and the complaints.

Was that more you said neighbors?

Is that more than one neighbor?

They were funneled through one person.

Okay, but she had stated that she had talked to others and they had you know mentioned it, so she became the the um voice.

So we don't know if that's true or not.

All we know is they can from one source and potentially they want complaints, but we that's nothing we can verify or that we can take.

I only know what I'm told to.

But she did send you a letter proceeding.

I have I have emails and pictures of stuff she had had been sending me.

She's not here, so I can't.

Okay.

But you did receive the letter, like she was saying, Chelsea was saying about the sending.

She had called me and said that he had gone down and spoke to everybody and said that it was okay.

And I'm like, well, that you know that's great, but I can't.

I can't just you know, I can't leave that.

A letter doesn't make the truck smaller, you know.

Right.

It doesn't, it doesn't give meet the standard of compliance with the code.

Yeah, which is our job to determine.

I mean, he I think he had mentioned taking air out of the tires to make it smaller, and like as long as it can roll, I don't know.

I'll take it.

And then it's a location.

And maybe you can look at Walmart or something, like maybe you'll create yourself uh a different violation for uh a non-operating vehicle if I had to get a smaller truck.

Warner, we ready to proceed on this.

All right, Mr.

Engelstein.

May I have the first motion, Mr.

Engel?

I believe uh move to find uh find the respondent in violation of the code is referred to in the after debate in this case.

So all in favor?

Aye, all opposed.

May I have a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring a respondent to correct the volunteers on over four July 7th, 2024.

I mean, I'm sorry, August 7th.

Um whatever date you want to do.

I'll just do seven.

Yeah, that's August 7th.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um let's see.

On it for August 7th, 2026.

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

If clients and fees remain unpaid, three months after such lane is filed, you say it's authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lane.

I have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye, all opposed.

Sir, I'm sympathetic to your case.

I wish there was more we could do to help you, but our hands are behind by.

I thought you guys had more power to make any decision.

We can't make it.

Yeah, we gave you extra time.

That's all we can do.

If I'm going on to clear what it I make, I make a complaint about every vehicle that is over seven feet.

I want each vehicle to be removed from the public that is mine, we'll be that's not enough to us.

That's up to the inspector.

Understood, and I understood I understand your your concern, and but uh at the end of the day, I don't know that that'll move in the direction of solving your situation there.

And you're not gonna do that anyway.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming to speak to us.

We understand appreciate it.

I I sympathize with you, I wish you there was more we could do, but um we're bound by the whatever the the code is.

You know, if you want that change, then I would encourage you to talk to somebody who's in a position that can change that code that offers more latitude and helps you with your situation.

Yeah, talk to your company about another truck or go buy something else yourself.

Have a good day.

Good luck to you, sir.

Appreciate you coming in.

Yes, very case uh our agenda item 3.20 case 122-26.

Fine respondents Nickersian and October Octavia Chevarician.

At 3113 San Mateo Street in violation of code for trailer parking and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this?

Inspector, you have the floor.

Um this property is now in compliance.

We're just seeking a declaration uh declaration of violation.

All right.

Very good.

Can I get a declaration of find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case?

The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing.

And to enter an order that no fine be imposed.

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

The violation continues to exist.

I have a second.

All in favor?

All opposed?

Thank you.

All right, that completes our new business items.

We're going to move on to old business items.

Uh agenda item 4.1, case 122-25.

Consider request by petitioners William Reese at 1390 South Hillcrest Avenue to reduce the fine regarding residential rental business tax receipt.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on this?

So this is the one.

Okay.

Let me um could you tell us your name and your uh address in relation to the property?

Yes, April and Cloyd.

I am uh William Reese's real estate agent, and I sold him the property at 1390 South Elcrest.

Okay.

No.

No.

I sold him the property, and then there was a different agent that handled the rentals.

So okay, and um, when was the property purchased?

Property was purchased in 2023.

Um Mr.

Reese had plans of spending the rest of his days here in Florida.

Unfortunately, he had a very ill parent um in Illinois that he had to go back and take care of.

They passed away, unfortunately, and the property um he couldn't have two mortgages, so he decided to rent it.

Um he consulted with the property manager, and the property manager advised that a short-term rental would make him more money and that it was legal.

Um, Mr.

Reese didn't do his due diligence, which he should have done.

Um, and you know, was not made aware of the fine.

I guess there was a citation placed on the door.

The property manager did not let him know about when he found out about the violation in March, they terminated their agreement and the tenant was removed, and it hasn't been a uh rental since then.

Um he was only made made aware of the fine um or the per dm, you know, that had been accrued three days prior to closing on his house, which I sold, which was on the 12th of June when the closing statement came out, and there was a $10,000 excess fine.

Um, and he was very upset about that.

Okay, so he's asking for leniency um from March 31st to June 15th when the house was sold to reduce that fee.

What did you say your relationship is to this gentleman again?

I'm his real estate agent.

We okay we have a letter.

We are we do have a letter.

Okay, I'm about to say wait a second.

Yes, he's in Illinois still taking care of his other parent that just checking very much to clarify for me.

I'll get up there and talk about it.

Yes, he asked that I'd be here today.

To clarify, I'm sorry, to clarify for the record, we have a letter uh that gives the authority approval authority to represent the owner.

Okay, all right, just want that on the record.

Okay, so he's in Illinois.

Yes.

Uh he purchased the property in 2023.

Correct.

And then he leased it out.

2025.

He purchased it in 2025.

No, he purchased it in 2023.

He lived in the property until 2025 when his parent got ill.

And I have a question.

Yes.

You said that he found out about it in March and had the, unless I misunderstood, and had the tenant removed in March 31st, yes.

The tenant would be.

But he was not aware of the lien at that point.

No, he was not aware of the lien until three days prior to closing when the closing statement was released by the title company.

Right.

I understand that part.

I'm real estate broker, too.

Yeah.

Um, but the question is how did he find out that the leasing agent was doing short-term rentals?

I'm not sure if the leasing agent told him after the fact because they were getting complaints or what the situation was.

I wasn't privy to that.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

So can you give us the date when he was informed when he received notice?

Do you have any idea of what he never received any formal notice?

That was apparently made aware to the property manager, which didn't relay how serious the situation was.

And he just said, you know, we can't do short-term rentals, but if we get a longer term tenant in there, it'll be fine.

So they put somebody else in there for a 30-day instead of a one to seven.

It was more of a 30-day.

And then I'm not sure how he was made aware that that was not also allowed.

And so March 31st is when the agreement with the um property manager was terminated and the tenant was removed.

Okay, and and forgive my misunderstanding.

I was thinking in terms of short-term rental, but this is for a residential rental.

Um board, I think I can give some clarification on this.

I believe when these cases first came to the board, it was a combo short-term rental and lack of business tax receipt for the rental.

They did comply with the short-term rental portion, but they never got their business tax receipt.

So that's when the fine started was put that specifically, not for both the short-term rental and the BTR.

So the fines that you're looking at today are specifically for not having a BTR.

APTR has since been applied for and approved.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

So it's that would tell me that if if that BTR is still in force or still valid that uh it's in compliance, but there was a period of time where it was rented without a business tax receipt, and it's for that period of time that business tax receipt did not exist at this applying that's right.

Okay.

All righty.

Um wish we could get more data on exactly what occurred regarding notice uh dates of notice received uh and uh what was uh done to correct it.

Um store is the business tax receiving yes.

What address is on file for the ownership of that property?

Does anybody have the penales county property?

Uh I don't know off the top of my head, but we would have been sending notice to whatever's in Pinellas County property appraiser.

Notice sorry board.

The notice was the address listed was the property address for his mailing address.

So all the mail went to the address listed on the agenda.

So he got it versus the property manager.

It looks like most of the mail was returned to me as unclaimed.

I'm going through the file.

Um but that's probably why he didn't get the mail is because he had his this address as his mailing address.

I see.

Well, he would have been for lack of a better term, uh, double insulated in the fact if the notices went to the property address.

You've got a tenant there.

Did the tenant forward them, and then you also have the property manager in between that was contributing to andor creating was a part of that violation, and so it's it's understandable to me how he might not have received notice.

However, that does not alleviate the fact that you know there was a violation there.

Um he's aware that the violation is in fact, and he wants he's a very much a role follower.

He just, you know, he wants to try to get a little bit of leniency from that March 31st date until June 12th or June 15th, rather.

Understood.

So he's asking the lien be reduced from 10,850 to 7500?

Correct.

Well, I have a question about that before we uh because I'm looking for is the lien reduction is that the amount too, or is that the amount of the reduction?

Uh the 7500 would be the reduct the reduced amount.

I'm sorry, that would be 3,350.

Correct, yes.

So he's he's willing to pay the 7500, but he's willing to pay the 750.

Well, he's he's asking if we can reduce it to whatever the March 31st date is until the June 15th date, whatever that's so the new fine would be 7500.

The new fine would be 7500.

Correct.

Okay.

Per this form, the desired lien reduction is 7500, which would be the reduction from the current lien amount.

So what he would be asking to pay for this would be 3,350.

Okay, yes.

Sorry about that.

That's nice.

Just wanted to start clarification of terms.

The administrative costs are 1,031 dollars and 20 cents.

1,031 and 20 cents.

20 cents.

Which you cannot go pull up.

Right.

I if if it's all right with the board, I'll opine on this for a minute and then look for other input.

However, the uh the owner has asked for a reduction to 3,350.

Um I have no quarrel or argument with that, but I will certainly entertain discussion on what the board thinks about it.

I think it's reasonable.

I can understand totally why the owner wouldn't know about this.

Yeah, I can too.

Yeah.

Comments, gentlemen.

I don't have any objections.

I have no objection.

For supporting it.

I'm sorry.

Your decision, we're supported.

I have no objection.

All right.

Um may I have a motion then for the uh to reduce the lien amount to $3,350.

I put in a motion to reduce the lien amount to $350, sorry, $3,350.

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for coming.

Appreciate you coming to speak to us today.

All right.

I believe we have another one here.

All right.

Next on our agenda item 4.2, case 196-17.

Consider request by petitioners William Bassett at 301 Baker Avenue to reduce the fine regarding exterior services and abandoned building, and if approved, issue an order that specifies a fine that will that includes administration costs and establish the date payable, the lien will revert to its original amount.

Is there anyone hit or speak on this?

Sir, please come forward.

Sir, please give us your name and address.

Robert Bassett, 1871 Murphy Old Way.

You obviously are the property owner.

I am right.

What would what would you like to tell us about this?

I I believe this this case fell through the cracks as a very old case.

I brought the property into compliance with the previous uh code enforcement officer that was there, spoke with Sarah, she was lovely, helped me out, spoke with the new Daniel.

We had an old Daniel that was in there before.

He's no longer there.

Apparently, what happened is he either quit or whatever happened, he stopped working there, and the case has been dormant ever since accruing fines.

At the time that it happened, the uh the officer Daniel argued with me about in the back, I had the whole house painted, the whole house brought into compliance, but he argued there was what appeared to be a chip in the back of my house up under the soffit, and he said that had to be fixed, but it wasn't a chip, it was just where the wood, you know, kind of popped out a little bit.

Nothing the the home is in compliance and nothing's been done to it from the day that I painted it to bring it in compliance till today.

So I feel that we weren't out of compliance.

We brought the home in compliance, and that the fines should have never been assessed in the first place, even in his report.

The original Daniel stated he was confused about which property it was that was in compliant or wasn't in compliance, and that's in the record.

Okay.

So can I ask somebody thank you, sir?

I appreciate that input.

I should want to try and clear my thinking on this.

Sure.

Um do we have any data available about compliance on this property and how long this ran and any data on our end on this?

I can I can give you a rundown because I oh you looked up.

You're the one that looked it up.

I looked into this Mr.

Plum, you have the floor.

I did I took it special interest in this because I I requested a copy of the minutes.

Sure.

And you were at the hearing on that day.

No, no, this is the first time I've been to a hearing, I believe.

Are you Robert Bassett?

I am Robert Bassett.

Oh, I was at a maybe.

I guess it was in 2017.

Yes.

Okay.

And you you confirmed the code violations at that time and the minutes.

Agreed.

So I'm just gonna give you the board a rundown since I've looked into this matter.

Um so the original order, the affidavit of non-compliance, and the recorded lien in case 196-17 were entered against uh William L.

Bassett Trust and Margaret J.

Bassett Trust, which remain the owners of uh recording with the Penellas County property appraiser's office.

That trust is still the owner.

The lien reduction application before the board was submitted by Robert Bassett individually, and no documentation has been provided establishing that he is authorized to act on behalf of the respondent trust.

In addition, the application provides no competent evidence of financial hardship and no and presents no new evidence that would justify revisiting the board's prior findings, order affidavit or non-compliance, and the resulting record recorded lien.

I would also note that board member Ingall participated in the original December 20th, 2017 hearing and made the motion finding the respondent trust in violation while the official minutes and orders speak for themselves.

This continues service on the board's provides continuity regarding the history of this matter.

I will also point out that the lien reduction application states that the application and supporting documentation are incomplete or inaccurate.

The application will not be scheduled for public hearing.

Based on the information before us today, I do not believe the application provides sufficient information for the board to evaluate the requested relief.

Should the applicant wish to reapply, the board would expect documentation, establish an authority to act on behalf of the trust, a corrected application identifying the proper applicant, and competent evidence supporting any claim hardship.

If there is no further discussion, I have a suggestion motion.

Okay.

Tell me what you want to suggest.

My motion I suggest would I move that the board deny the application without prejudice.

This allows the submission of a new lien reduction application, the names of the William L.

Bassett Trust and Margage A.

Bassett Trust, supported by appropriate documentation, established an authority to act on behalf of the trust and any hardship information or other supporting evidence the applicant wishes the board to consider.

I would to I would I would concur with that.

Um simply because there's from my perspective on this, um I would like to see more data in terms of I I appreciate what you've brought to us today and your explanation and everything.

And your narrative about uh what you've told us about the fact that uh that inspector is now gone, so we don't have the benefit of his data.

Um the thing I would be interested in hearing about is specifically what the violation was was originally, what was done done to bring it in compliance.

Um any data regarding okay, is it is it in compliance?

Was it in compliance with a certain date?

If so, when was that?

Because that helps us that would help us understand, and and before we go there, sure.

Um, I think uh what we're talking about here is uh at the end of the day suggesting you compile some more data rather than argue this any further now and compile some more data that would help us in a decision uh so that we're not in a uh uh we're not necessarily ruling today.

That's the I believe that's the suggestion that Mr.

Plum has made.

And uh from my perspective.

I'll just point out there's two pages of minutes on that case in the minutes.

Okay, it's quite well spelled out.

Okay, that it was inside of the action.

Fair enough.

Um that may well be the case that it was in violation.

My, you know, I I know that the the way the system works when a case is in violation and it's brought before the board, and we accept that and rule on it, then the fine start accruing.

Uh my interest would be in finding out uh at what point were those violations corrected, were they correct or not?

Or I can give some clarification on that.

Or I can give some clarification on that.

Now, this case was originally heard in 2017, and the affidavit of non-compliance was filed in February of 2018 after it wasn't corrected.

Um generally speaking, when violations happen like this, we don't go out and re-inspect it for a you know, re-complying it unless we are prompted to by the property owner.

Uh, in this case, in 2024, I believe it was, uh, previous inspector Shelby Brown went through the old lien list and went through and checked some of the liens that we had occurring that were like long-standing years old ones.

And this is one of the ones that she went out and re-inspected and complied out.

So it was complied in, I believe 2024, but I need clear check on actually.

I think I have it from me.

All right.

That October 2024 is when we complied it.

So the property is in compliance at this point for all the violations.

That's one good piece of data.

The question I have is that if it was found in compliance, and then not there wasn't anything done until 2024.

Uh, I understand at that point it was ruled to be in compliance, but during that period of time, if there was an earlier point than the 2024 date where it was in compliance, then the question I have is is it is it appropriate to assess fines for all of that time.

Nobody knew that it was in compliance.

Yeah, generally speaking, that's why we had this lien reduction process.

Yeah, generally speaking, that's why we had this lien reduction process is if someone basically they didn't realize they had fines occurring, whatever the reason they have a chance to come back in, make that case before the board.

At this point, the city, the property is in compliance, the city has no objection to reducing the fines.

Okay.

Can you tell us when you brought it into compliance?

I brought it into compliance at that time.

It was I was arguing with the the officer at the time.

His name was Dan, and he no longer works for you guys.

Um, but we were arguing about that little chip in the back, and it wasn't really a chip.

It's it was painted.

I brought the entire house into compliance at that time, you know, and the reason he didn't cure it was because he said that chip was up there.

Then I called the city attorney at the time, which was uh Mr.

Fuse FUSO.

Is that that name ringability you guys?

Nope.

I have the email here where he emailed me about um I mean Mr.

Fleenhouse.

Huh?

Fuino?

Flynn?

I have a the email here.

I don't like the trying to pull it up.

Well, you had it all pulled up for you.

Huh?

Robert, I think what the board's trying to tell you is just re reapply for your lien.

Reapply.

This this one is not is the applicant should be the trust.

And if you're the trustee or yeah, the legal authority to represent the trust, and the Pinellas County still has the trust listed as owners, not you.

So you had to show us that you have authority and interest in that property through the trust to come back.

So put all that documentation into your new lien request and show your hardships.

I understand what you're saying.

The issue I have with that is the house is currently under contract, you know, for sale.

It's being bought by uh you know a property developer, and he's gonna renovate the property and flip it, sell it, you know, and I'm under contract.

I understand what you're saying, but we're talking about the property, you know, not the owners of the property.

The property is in compliance, and it's going to hold up the sale of the property, and we need for that to be sold.

And from my perspective, it never should have been out of compliance in the first place because I did all the work to get it into compliance back at the time.

So it's going to cause an undue hardship on us with monetary losses if I can't get this cured today.

If you're selling the property, you must have some kind of yeah, I do, it's under contract.

No, okay, so you must have a power of attorney or something that shows that you can are you the process of the process.

Yeah, we're going to work.

No, my the the it's owned by a trust, and we're going through the title company and everything, doing everything correct the way it has to be.

So it's not like a cash sale where I'm giving you don't hold the title to a house.

Yeah.

But we need those the paperwork showing your connection to the trust and that you're authorized to act on behalf of it.

That's the missing piece that we don't have right now.

Unless you can produce that, of course.

But I would have to do that.

I can't at the second, right?

So I don't think we decided to bring it up.

I don't think they're going to want to move forward without that today.

What is, if I could ask, then what is the ramifications of moving forward?

How is there liability on the city by removing a uh a violation on the property itself?

What does it matter who is standing here?

The house, the property has been cured.

There is no violation.

Why are you going to hold the lien based on who's coming here and saying it's in compliance?

She said it's in compliance.

What is the liability to this?

Because we have to make sure the right person is making the request, because if we just had some guy off the street who doesn't really have authority to act on behalf of the property owner, so it could be anybody.

Yeah.

It could be me.

Let's say it is.

What does that matter?

Where is the liability for this board to release the lien based on who's up here asking?

I'm Robert Bassett.

This has been in my family for 60 plus years.

Can I ask a question?

Sure.

Um, Mr.

Salzman, or uh Mr.

Plum, what is the what do you show is the the registered property owner on this?

Is it the I looked it up?

It was Panales County lists of the trust.

There's two trusts.

Yeah.

William.

I'm sorry, so there's two trusts here on property praise because I was just looking at that, but Mr.

Salzman can look at it too if you want.

I just had to pull it on.

My my question is if if the name of the trust is this gentleman's name, is is there an implied or implicit authorization authority for him to be able to represent the trust?

The question goes to the city, whether the city has an objection for this individual to be forward and ask this request.

That that's the only issue here.

If the city doesn't have a problem with it, then it properly before the board.

And I have a question.

Are you a trustee of the trust?

I'm not.

My mother is.

Okay.

Well, so you're not the trustee?

No.

My mother is.

Are your mother still alive?

Yeah, she's still alive.

My it was my grandparents' house.

She needs to apply to that.

Or give it power of attorney.

Yeah.

Okay.

We're doing all that.

First off.

You all can't be given legal advice on how this goes, okay?

I let it go a little too far.

Sorry.

I'm sorry.

That's my fault.

Okay.

The city has to object for this matter to be improperly before you.

If they don't object, then it's properly before you, and then you should consider it.

That is this is a lien reduction for a fine that the city has on this.

That's the sole issue here.

We we don't give advice, legal advice.

If they're comfortable with having him make this request, that's fine.

If they're not, then that's fine too.

Then it should be continued.

So Sarah, I'll leave it up to you.

We don't have the proper paperwork here necessarily to prove this guy's connection to be the right party before us to make this request.

However, that's just my legal advice to you.

The ultimate decision is up to you whether you want to move forward with this or not.

So the board that's separate from the board.

The board should not hear this if you're if the city doesn't believe that the proper parties in front of them.

Confer with the clerk one moment.

We have no objection.

No objection.

All right.

And then I have a question.

Um city costs.

Yes.

Are there city costs about the call?

The costs in this case are 1,291.2.

I would like to put in a motion to reduce the fines to 1,291 dollars or 26.

I second it.

Would you well?

Okay.

Wow.

Fair enough.

All in favor?

Aye.

I thought we have some names.

Posed.

Opposed.

Opposed.

Three opposed four four four or four, three are opposed.

Is that correct?

Just want to make sure we have four or four and three are against.

Okay.

It passes.

It passes.

Motion passes.

Thank you all.

That was uh thank you, sir.

Appreciate you coming to speak today.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Okay.

Moving on to other board action.

Um accept the affidavits of compliance as listed.

Normally we do those as a group.

And so I would entertain a motion to accept the appetite of compliance compliance, including number 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.1.5, and 5.1.6.

And I have a motion to accept these affidavits of compliance.

I move to accept the affidavits of compliance as listed.

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

We have an affidavit of non-compliance.

Accept the affidavit of non-compliance for respondents.

Brendan Ryan Buchanan at 4302 Brigadier and Circle for permits.

I don't know.

Second?

Oh, it's right here.

We're trying to file out.

Item agenda, it's at the bottom of other board action number 5.2, right above nuisance abatement.

What is that withdrawal?

So can I have a uh motion to accept the affidavit of non-compliance?

I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that imposes fines and state if fines and fees remain unpaid for 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.

All right.

Moving on to nuisance abatement lien filings.

6.1 has been withdrawn.

Number 6.2.

Inspector Sudeth.

This is uh I'm sorry, case uh 154-26.

Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents.

Corniglia Enterprises LLC at 510 Brookside Drive for lot clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met.

There is somebody here.

There is yeah.

Okay.

Well, sir, would you come forward and state your name?

Hi, it's uh Brett Harris, uh 510 Brookside Drive, Clearwater, Florida.

Sir, can you give us a brief on uh what you'd like to tell us?

Sure.

Um I'm here today uh not disputing the violation.

I'm here to ask for a brief continuance to July to complete the compliance work.

Uh the remediation work has commenced and uh will be completed shortly.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Inspector Siddith, what would you like to say about this?

Vicky Southern for the City of Clearwater.

This is for case 154-26 at 510 Brookside Drive.

This is for our nuisance abatement.

There is one violation there for lot clearing, code section 3-1503 B7, BA, V10, D5A.

Inspector, I'm gonna interrupt you for a minute here.

Um, this is I'm seeing an address of 510.

510.

All right, you're correct.

I'm sorry, I was looking at the previous case.

My mistake.

Okay.

Uh the notice of violation was posted at the property, and it was also mailed on May 21st of 2026 with a compliance date of June 1st, 2026.

The certified mail was not received back signed, so it was posted at the property.

This is a picture of the posting of the property on May 20th.

This is a picture of the back of the property, the front of the property.

Another picture of the front of the property.

There's a lot of debris and overgrowth.

Um, when I went out there yesterday, um, there was somebody at the property.

I had not had any contact with anybody.

I it just I just so happened to drive by there, I saw him there.

He was um starting to clean up the property.

Um, the front of it was cut as of this morning.

Um, but the rest of it, what was cut is kind of left all over the place.

This is what it looked like this morning.

The back of it.

There's a problem with the homeless there, and they had set up a camp right there on the corner, which is what that large area is.

This is uh some of the trash that he had put out to the street.

Sorry, I don't know why this thing's not moving.

You're not the first one.

Yeah.

That's okay, thank you.

There's a reason they call these things miracles in modern technology.

Yeah, there's a closer picture of the corner.

And that was today's yeah, these are from today, this morning at uh 9 30.

That's just different trash in there.

Almost uh there's three properties right there that interconnect with each other.

Um one is a vacant lot, and then the back of his property, and then a strip store.

There was a very large there's a problem with homeless right there.

There was a huge homeless camp.

I was able to get everybody to clean up theirs, but I have no contact with this property.

Um the mail was returned, but when I had spoken to him, he said that that's the wrong address that property appraiser has, so I did suggest him that he get that taken care of so he does get his mail.

Um, but anyways, that's what the violation is as to clearing all the trash and debris.

Um requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order.

Inspector, would you care to opine on on based on what you I believe you shot pictures today, so you were there today to opine on what you've seen in terms of uh what's been done to clean this thing up?

Are you asking me what has been done?

I'm asking you just to tell us what you've seen because oh, he just just the front section was the only part that has been cut, the rest of it is still exactly how he's got it.

Yeah, okay.

But again, you know, like I said, I talked to him yesterday, he hadn't gotten any of the mail he had been to the property until just recently when he said he saw the posting.

So I think in your request you're requesting compliance with uh five days after we render our order.

Um does the board care to discuss with the owner since he's in the process of mitigation.

He's asking for more time.

Do you care to ask the property owner any questions before we make a ruling and set a time?

We have an ongoing fine, right?

Daily fine.

No, this is just um this is just for the lot clearing.

If you know we can't we wouldn't do anything until after five days after you guys sign the order, anyways, which wouldn't give him another week at least a minimum of a week, probably even a little bit longer.

So these are just nuisance abatement.

You're giving the city the opportunity to go in, clean up the nuisance, and then lean the property.

So this is these are a little different.

Um because it's not they're not asking for a declaration of violation, and then somebody come in compliance.

They're saying, look, we just gotta we gotta do it ourselves, and uh it gives them a short period of time five days before they come in and then they take care of it and they lean the property for the cost of what it took to to abate the nuisance.

Okay, all right.

Any questions?

This guy seems to want to speak to me.

Sorry, I had prepared remarks.

I was just filling in order.

Sir Good afternoon, members of the board.

My name is Brett Harris.

I am the owner of the property at 510 Brooks Drive, and thank you for hearing me today.

Um I take this violation seriously.

I'm not here to dispute it.

I do want to explain the timeline for the record because it matters to what I'm asking.

The property is my office during the school year, it's on my drop-off route.

Um, so I'm there weekly and would have seen a posted notice.

The mailed notice also went to the same property address, so both the uh posted copy and the mailed copy were sitting there uh at the property.

Uh with school out for the summer, I lost that weekly weekly reason to be on site, and I was traveling for a good portion of family summer travel.

Um that's the honest reason.

Both notices went unseen, uh, not in difference, just being away.

I didn't actually become aware of this until Monday, June 22nd.

And the moment I did, I went straight to work.

Yesterday I was personally at the property beginning the cleanup uh when Vicky happened to stop by.

We spoke, we walked the property together.

Uh so the city's own inspectors saw firsthand that good faith remediation was already underway.

Um as Vicky's reinspection this morning confirmed the front area, which it was a blight and overgrown, has already been mowed.

And um, you know, I have a picture as well, which I can provide, but basically just reiterates that that that's what's been taken care of.

Uh the remaining work is modest in total, no more than a small trailer's worth of debris, vegetative vegetative debris, and the trash which was deposited by that homeless encapment that's sort of at that property corner between those three properties.

The homeless are actually back in the woods, which is the vacant lot, but they seem to like to deposit trash there.

Um and that's the issue.

That's what's left to be cleaned up.

Um so I tried to get a landscaper out actually last night in my conversation.

Talked to to Vicky multiple times yesterday, tried to make the phone calls to get somebody out there yesterday, but on that short notice, wasn't able to.

I do have a crew scheduled to come out in the next few days to complete the work, simply remove that trash and get it out of there.

And um to make sure it never reoccurs.

I've also reached out and arranged new landscaping crew to keep the property maintained on a regular schedule.

So no no matter what the season, this won't be back before the board.

So I'll simply close with a request, is just the continuance to July.

Um a similar period of time I'd have asked for if I had seen the notice earlier to finish the small amount of work that's already underway.

I'm grateful for the board's consideration, and I'm glad to answer any questions.

Thank you.

If if you have a crew coming out in the next couple of days, why do you need till July?

Well, I I don't need that much time, it's just because that's the that's the date that you guys set for the next one.

So I'm asking for the continuance, so I don't need till July.

I have them coming out in the next couple days.

Okay.

So what's your connection to this company right here?

I'm the owner of it.

Yeah, I'm I'm the listed representative.

Okay.

Do you have any proof of that?

Uh not printed with me, but I can sure can bring up some stuff on my phone if asked.

Okay.

I was just curious.

Yeah, that's yeah.

Um, it's a sole member LLC.

I'm the the acting member.

Yes, on some basis.

Mr.

Harris, my only question is did you address any of this cleanup before you went on vacation?

I did not.

No, I was not, you know, I I did not.

Why not?

Before I went on vacation.

Um, you know, one, I don't think it was to that level of degree, and and if it was, um, you know, I I just wasn't aware of it.

Okay.

So, but as Vicky mentioned in our discussions yesterday, I mean, what I would like to do as a property owner there, because I think it is a real nuisance to have homeless and vagrant activity.

And I just realized this morning um when I was going to stop by the office to print these documents that I'm standing here, went to Staples.

I realized that uh my internet cable has been cut probably by those same people, and I have security cameras back there, and now I'm realizing those those have been offline for a period of time because my my internet's been cut at the at the location by the vagrants.

Yeah, so I'd like to you know make a formal request of uh the city of Clearwater Police Department to have the formal authority to trespass people off of the property in the future, so that you know it's not a recurring incident.

Yeah, I have a question for perhaps uh Madam Secretary.

I'm wondering when we when we first rule uh this property in violation, when was that maybe the inspector could tell us when we because typically since the first time is this property has never been done a violation?

Okay, so it's just a nuisance thing.

Right, this is the choice of city.

I just wanted to make sure that if we had visited before had this been going on a while.

Okay.

Well, and does the city re city reaches out to the owner before they come in there, right?

Don't look and see if there's progress being made.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

So when we um say a nuisance violation, we post the notice of violation at the property and mail it to the address on property appraiser, um, which case you know we either get response back from them at that point or we don't.

We usually try and reach out to if there's numbers and utilities, but sometimes we don't make contact with the owner prior to code board.

In this case, uh the property owner was at the property yesterday, so that's the time first time we've had a chance to speak about this.

Um answer the question.

I did try to reach out on the wire accounting one number from there.

I did uh call the number and leave a message, but other than that, my only way to have communication was to post it on the property.

Um but as I had said, he had already told me that the address on property appraiser is not his mailing address, so that's why he never got the happiness.

Okay.

Well, it's just it's the same property address.

So it was the notice was sitting there for that same period of time where I hadn't been by to check the mail to see the property over these last roughly 30 days, which I haven't.

Um that's that's the issue.

And so no, I did not see the notice until uh the 22nd, which I took immediate action thereafter.

Neither comments or discussion on this.

Just want to let you know and I check Sundays and he's on there, so okay, good.

So I guess my question is you're asking for more time than the five days being given.

I'm just asking for a continuance so that it can be dealt with so that there's not a formal order placed at this point in time because I'm I'm making the remediation efforts.

That's that's my understanding.

That's why I'm saying you asked for July 1.

Us for July 1.

Well, it's well five days.

Whatever date.

I mean if I but I asked for a time period, it would be uh you know, maybe 10 days.

If you're gonna set a date outside of the the next um hearing, then I have no problem you know tightening that time frame.

It's just I want to have a continuance to such time so that I can remediate and not have the the order placed because I'm acting in good faith.

I literally was out at the property yesterday making efforts, try to get crew out last night, it didn't happen.

You know, I'm gonna have it remedy.

Do you have any objection to it?

I mean, generally speaking, the city would request that we don't uh continue a case like this.

You know, what we brought in front of the board today is that there was a violation being returned to an affidavit that there is in fact a violation, so at this point we're requesting you to rule on whether there is a violation in giving the city authority to enter onto the property in a bait.

Uh should the board wish to give more than the five days to render the time, we would have no objection.

That's ultimately the board's decision, but we would request not continue it to the next meeting.

We'd like an order.

Um that will be July.

It will be at least a week and a half before we even get the order, and then we wait the five days.

So I meant to so if we do the five days now, that's what I was thinking that that physically um if he gets it done within ten days, you guys show up and there's nothing to do.

You I mean you're gonna typically you're gonna show up your whoever you assign it to is gonna show up later than that if it's done and there's nothing for them to do, then once she sends us the paperwork and she'll Nicole tells us what the date is of when we can go out and reinspect it.

If we go out there and inspect it and it's all done, then the case is just closed.

If it's not done, then we will send our contractor out there to give us an estimate of what it's gonna cost to clean it up, and then it goes to Sarah and it gets approved, and then the contractor will be scheduled to come out there and clean it up.

You might have gleaned from that then if we if we uh render an order uh requesting the compliance within five days physically, it's it's longer than that.

He has more time than that physically to get it done.

Which is essentially where we're gonna end up this if you get it cleaned up by then then you have the time because the wheels turn a little bit slower than the five days.

No, I mean my sure we're all speaking in the mic.

Sorry, so I mean part of the reason for me spending you know my my time here today with you is given I made immediate efforts when when I was made aware of it of the 22nd.

And my understanding, I do have a real consideration as a property owner.

If transients and bankruptcy and homeless are depositing trash on my property, you know, I don't want this issue where you know you guys rule on this, I'm happy to clean it up, get it fully remedied, but I don't think going forward, and this is what you kind of explained to me yesterday, and and I have an issue with the concept of once the order is issued, then you know you come out, you know, three months later, and there happens to be you know trash in that corner from that one simple corner.

Uh you immediately act on it without me having any you know response time, you know.

That's that's a different issue.

And that uh what we're talking about here is there's a certain uh certain uh condition that the inspector has observed.

If we're talking about issuing an order here that gives you that that says five days, but you end up with effectively something like 10 days, you get it cleaned up.

I mean, you can document that yourself.

You can call the inspector and say it's in compliance, come look and I have pictures and anything that occurs after that.

I mean, at that point, I don't want to speak for our inspector, but at that point, if you're in compliance, then I mean the thing is done and goes away.

We have no control or no predict about what happens in the future.

Okay.

I also did explain to him that because there is a problem with the homeless back there that he needed to get with the Clearwater Police Department and get a no trespass order for that property.

Once he does that, if the homeless come back on there onto his property, and the police are notified, they will come out and issue them a trespass, and if they come back, then they have the authority to arrest them.

That is what I suggested to him to make sure that he does right away and to also change his address.

Like we did go over all of this, and what I had explained to him was if the property does not get cleaned up and we go out and clean it, we will have that order for the future.

If it's cleaned up, though, the case is closed, and and it would have to be brought back in front of the board.

It's only if it's not brought into compliance by the date.

Understood.

All right.

Any other questions?

Any other discussion that we need to have?

All right.

I'm ready to entertain a motion.

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

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

If cost the 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, sir, for coming today.

Item 6.3 on our agenda case 155-26.

Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents' clock management.

LLC at 1116 Amble Lane for an operative vehicle and issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation.

If compliance is not met.

I don't think there's anybody here.

That's right.

Good afternoon.

Wheeler's board, Daniel Kasman, code enforcement inspector for the city of Clearwater.

This is case number 155-26 for 1116 amble lane.

This is for nuisance abatement.

One violation here for code section 3-1503 B6 for an operative vehicle.

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

This is 1116 ample lane.

It's a duplex.

The other eye address is 118.

Uh sorry, 1118 ample lane.

I came here originally due to a bunch of exterior storage in the rear of the property while back there.

I noticed there was a boat trailer with no license plate on it.

A tenant let me in the back because the tenants were having a bit of a feud about one tenant's stuff all being in the rear of the property.

This might be a future code board case, but we'll hopefully maybe won't get there.

And when I went back from my reinspection, I also noticed there was a vehicle out front with no license plate on it.

And the boat was still in the case.

1116 is the official address, but it's a duplex with two addresses.

One is 1116, one is 1118.

Okay, thank you.

This vehicle is sedan with no license plate on it.

I also noticed the boat was still in the rear of the property.

I posted the property that same day.

Uh when I went back, I noticed that the car had been turned around, but still had no license plate on it.

The boat was still in the rear, and when I went back today, the car was still there with no license plate on it, and the boat in the rear.

So compliance about for an operative vehicle by displaying a license plate with current tag on every vehicle, ensuring that all vehicles are physically operable or by removing an operative vehicles from the premises.

I'm requesting for this one compliance hour before five days from the date board renders its order.

Daniel, could I see a picture of the front, the back of that car again, please?

Yes.

Oh, it's black and white.

Okay.

The front is white, it's got a different color scheme on the front.

When it was the original day I went and looked at it, it was spun around the other way.

But it looks like it's the same vehicle, same sticker, same make it model.

I got thank you.

Any questions?

May I have a motion, please?

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

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

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

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

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Case 156-26.

Accept the nuisance abatement and lien.

Just perfect.

For respondents, Teal Crest Properties LLC at 1002 North Garden Avenue for lot clearing.

An issue order with the compliance deadline and authorized the city to mitigate the violation of compliance is not met.

Inspector Maddox.

Good afternoon, board Kevin Maddox, Code Compliance Inspector.

City of Clearwater.

Case number 15626.

This is a nuisance abatement for 1002 North Garden Avenue.

One violation for Section 1503 B7, B8, and B5A, lot clearing overgrowth, right of way, and accumulation of debris and trash.

Notice the violation was mailed and posted on 51826.

Compliance state by 528.

The green card was received signed.

I still posted the property on 518 shown here.

At the back of the property, you can see a pile of homeless encampment trash.

This is uh 528.

It is got a little bit better.

Probably the mowing was still happening, but uh the trash and homeless camp remained.

Uh this was this morning.

Uh the property with the trash uh still remaining.

Uh compliance can be met for cutting all grass and vegetation to include the curb line sidewalk and continuing to maintain it, removing all trash and debris and continuing to keep it clean.

I'm trying to get this homeless encampment out of there.

Um recommendation for this case 156-26 uh requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order.

Inspector, is this case been for us before?

To my knowledge, no, I've only been in this area since last July.

Okay.

I thought it was too.

Just look familiar, though.

Well, along Garden Road, there are a lot of lots that are empty and look familiar and degree.

They're small, they're deep, they're weird.

Yeah.

So it's up there close to parallel by the Pinellas Trail.

There's a lot of vacant properties up there.

Yes.

And they're up around that.

Uh they seem to be waiting for a mysterious buyer.

I don't know.

Yeah.

Yeah.

All right.

I wonder if that could be.

Any other questions?

Yeah.

No.

I move to enter.

Oh, yeah, go ahead.

Sorry.

Okay.

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

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

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

The city is authorized to propose collector settles settled such lien.

May I have a second, please?

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Motion carries.

Next case is item 6.5 on our agenda.

Case 157 26.

Case 157-26 accept the nuisance abatement link for respondents Mark G.

Montgomery at 1206 North Garden Avenue for Light Clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation.

If compliance is not met.

Inspector Maddox.

I'm here again.

Kevin Matt's code compliance inspector, case number one five seven-26, a nuisance abatement for 1206 North Garden.

One violation of 1503 B7B8 B5A, overgrowth right of way, overgrowth, and accumulation of debris and trash.

Notice of violation was mailed and posted on the 5 May 18th with a compliance date of 528-26.

The green card was not received.

This is the property with the posting.

The grass, as you can see, is long.

Again, on 518.

528, the grass is longer.

On 624 this morning, it's longer.

Compliance can be met lot clearing by cutting all grass and vegetation, removing all trash and debris and keeping it clean.

For this case, recommendation 157-26 requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order.

Questions from the board?

No.

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

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

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

May I have a second, please?

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Next case uh item agenda 6.6 case 158-26, except the nuisance abatement lane for respondents Matt Allen, 1260 Wellington LLC and 127 uh 1260 Wellington Drive for inoperative vehicle and issued an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the buy of action if compliance is not met.

Inspector Jensen.

This should only take about 35 or 40 minutes.

So can you shorten it up a bit more?

Uh this is for 1260 Wellington.

The actual address itself uh doesn't exist anymore, so it's a parcel number.

Um nuisance abatement.

That's case 158-26 on Dave Jensen code inspector with the media clearwater.

Just to have one violation for 31503 V6 for inoperative vehicles.

Uh these are the dates for the uh posting and the mailings.

Uh certified mail came back uh delivered.

However, I have spoken with the owner.

Uh he uses an out-of-state address for the property, but he is local.

He originally told me that uh he was buying the vehicles and waiting for titles as he had bought them at auction.

Um I've got a complaint from a neighbor, however, that he found Facebook postings where the vehicles are being posted, so it looks like this uh owner is buying the vehicles and then reselling them.

I was able to go on Facebook and see that uh the ads myself.

Uh these are the vehicles on the date of uh the original violation.

Uh none of them have uh license plates on them.

Again, the owner of the property did tell me it uh when I spoke to him that he didn't have uh titles for the vehicles yet.

Uh this is uh 515 vehicles are still on the property after the compliance date again on 68.

Vehicles are still there, a couple have been moved.

Uh again, this was uh today vehicles are still present, no plates on the vehicles.

Um there are a couple other things that are not public nuisance that uh we wouldn't have uh upfall under here is the grass parking storage in a residential area, which we don't allow, however, if we get the order from the board and the vehicles are removed either by the owner or by the city, that remedies the other situation.

So requesting compliance five days after the board runners is ordered, compliance can be met by the vehicles either being removed from the property or being plated, but they are gonna have to be removed anyway.

So inspect our own uh print out sheet it says inoperative V.

But there's more than one, right?

There's more than one, correct?

Yes.

So it's yeah, this says vehicles on its violations, even though it own ours, it may say vehicles.

So yeah, so um well I can bet that's why it's confirmed.

Did the owner um for that detail?

Did the owner ever state when he bought the vehicle?

Because I've bought vehicles from auctions before.

Well, yeah, and the last time I talked to him, he said he I asked him if he was getting anywhere with getting these things moved out of there.

He said he'd only received one title so far.

Um I've tried contacting the back and haven't had any log yet.

So again, I can't stipulate to what he may or may not be doing.

Um but when you say inoperative, you mean they can't be driven or correct.

Yeah, so our inoperative ordinance you it has to have a current registration and it has to be displayed on the vehicle.

Yeah, so even if you did have current registrations, if they're not on the vehicle, they do have to be displayed on there as well.

So they have no tags, right?

But yeah, they have they're they're just not on there.

So again, if it's flat tires, you know, again, hoods up with no engine in it, or just not even have the license plate.

That's they have to be roadworthy.

So correct.

When did you last uh speak with him?

Uh I couldn't tell you when it was I last spoke with him without having to look at case up, but it's again I should make sure you keep in touch with me and let me know what's going on here.

But I tried contact him back and haven't had any luck with him answering the phone again.

So the reason I asked that is I wonder if he realizes that if he doesn't do something soon, he's gonna lose it.

Well, he does because we do we the property was posted with the with the notice and then you know what happens.

So uh but yeah, the the notice of this hearing was gone from the property after I posted it too.

So and again, the vehicles have been moved while I've been watching it.

So you know he or somebody's been out there moving the vehicles around that property.

So he is not contacted you.

No, I've I've left I called him a couple more times and not any luggage in a little of them.

So all right.

Any other questions?

May I have a motion, please?

Mr.

Chairman, I move to enter or find a respondent in violation of code and require a respondent to correct the volunteers within five days of the board's written order.

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

Cost lines and fees remain away three months after such lane is filed.

May I have a second, please?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Thank you.

Thank you, Inspector.

Last one, 6.7 on our agenda case 159-26.

Except the nuisance abatement lien for respondents, William Lawrence Reese at 1874 Green Hill Drive for lock clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met.

Inspector Casman, we'll say for best for last.

Thank you for that.

This is case number 159-26 for 1874 Green Hill Drive.

It's a nuisance abatement.

There's one violation here for code section 3-1503 V8 and V10 for lock clearing.

These are the days and those violation with Senton with the compliance date and the affidavit of posting.

Um this is 1874 Green Hill Drive, and uh that was the posting, and this was the issue at the property.

This large bush or vine or whatever you want to call it.

Christmas out thrown and is taking over the roadway.

I did speak with a tenant there who I tried to explain how he could remedy it.

He said he would try, and uh the result was not where we needed it to be.

There needs to be at least an eight-foot clearance above the right-of-way, and it can't go past the curb.

So there needs to be some more chopping to be done for them to be in compliance.

I went by this morning, and it's still I feel like ferries are gonna come out of there.

It would have to be a cutout like this if you can follow the mouse at all.

Eight feet high and behind the curb.

Well enough.

So is it attached to that light?

It is entwined in a way in which it would comp you'd have to completely go in there by hand with clippers to remove it.

It's it's houses probably hundreds of birds.

You can hear them in there.

Wow.

You know, again, if it was just cleaned up a little bit to be out of the right of way, I'm okay with it as it is.

Duke Energy has obviously not cared.

They probably don't think it's doing anything wrong.

You know, but it is growing up.

It's growing too wide is the problem.

I mean, out of the post.

Yes.

Yeah, it's not a road.

So compliance met for lock clearing by trimming back bush, so there's at least an eight-foot clearance above the right-of-way and does not grow past the curb.

And I'm requesting compliance on every four or five days from the date the board renders its order.

Any questions or comments?

None.

May I have a uh motion, please?

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

If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with a reasonable cost to becoming on the file.

If costs fines and fees remain on pay three months after subscribing is filed, the city is authorized to propose elect or settle quickly.

I have a second place, you'll get all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed before we motion carries.

All right, fair enough.

And I've got a comment about that.

Certainly, we're also going to tell you that we're going to have at your next meeting a discussion on how to handle fine reduction.

Excuse me.

We've got a conversation going over here, ladies.

Sorry.

Mr.

Salzman has the floor.

He was he said next time.

Yeah, but everybody didn't hear.

And now we're going to talk.

We didn't.

No, at your next meeting, we're gonna have a discussion about fine reductions.

I think there's some confusion as to how these are handled and what your responsibility is or role in these.

So we believe that would Nicole and I discuss that.

Um you have to understand there's a definitive distinction between the city and this board.

And so what the city wants to bring before you, or what the city's comfortable with bringing before you, you're acting on basically basically on their request, the applicant and their request.

And so we have to look at those a little differently than we did today.

So it's it's we do this periodically, you know, when we see something that maybe there's some confusion we want to clarify.

Yeah.

So Mr.

Plump, my my I was just trying to find out if I could ask some questions.

On the lien reduction applications, it specifically states that the information has to be true and correct, and the applicant has to have an interest in the property or it has to be in the person's property owner's name.

That's worse.

Three or four times we had today, different times when we did we have curve authorizations and things like that.

But the one time for this one, it wasn't it wasn't required, simply because the city said that they didn't care.

I I'm just confused.

It says when if this application is not filled out properly, it doesn't go before us, it doesn't go to hearing.

And when I read these different comments by this guy, you bring allegations about the inspector, and when I read the two-page minutes of that meeting, the same guy gave testimony that all the violations existed except one.

But the other two violations, part of what you're seeing is like I'm just kind of getting up to speed on everything that's going on here.

I didn't even get to review all the cases before coming to this meeting.

So, you know, moving forward with these type requests and everything else, we're gonna be in lockstep with like what we're requesting and what you know who's requesting and making sure we're getting the proper authority and authorizations.

But we were seeing a little bit today, it was just us kind of that's one thing I was going to suggest is that we have the minutes from previous cases, if it's an old case, that we have the letter of authorizations, and then going forward, we we the board probably we can take everybody can have attorneys.

Like if you went through a divorce, you take your vice to your attorney, but then you have to decide is that what you're gonna do.

And when the board has to decide, are we going to accept lien reductions without proper authorization?

We had three board members.

You don't we don't use evidence, it's not for you all to judge that issue.

That's the city's presentation to you.

This is one of the issues.

In fact, what we did here was probably improper.

You cannot do individual research on a case and be part of this board.

I requested it and everybody got it.

You cannot testify as you did today.

That is improper.

You should have you that is not your job.

No, no, no.

That is you're the judge.

You're not you're not the prosecutor in this case.

They bring the case, you judge it.

If you all are at are doing your own investigation and looking at this, you have basically placed yourself in a position where you cannot sit in this case.

That's one of the problems that we have.

And that and that is just a mistake that we let happen.

We won't let it happen again.

It's not on you, it's just we didn't, you know, it's it's not unusual for you to have done what other people have done, but over the board.

We just probably shouldn't have allowed you to do it.

Well, that begs a question.

And that question is is when you know, I I I see this after we've been through a number of them since since I've been on here.

And it's it's good they provide the data, but in in particular case like this, the the data was very one-sided uh because it only came from the property owner.

And my dilemma is that I want to make a fair adjudication and a fair assessment of the details, and so the question becomes how best to do that.

If he's the only one that's here speaking to that, then how best, if especially on a cold case like this, how best uh do we gather data so that we can make a fair and proper evaluation so that if we have someone that's truly deserving, we can rule in their favor.

If we have someone that is totally irresponsible or contending things that are not true, but we have no way to verify those.

How do we how do we how do we evaluate that data?

What the law says is that what you hear at this hearing is the only evidence that you're supposed to determine that.

And one of the things we can discuss at the next meeting is what you all need to make that determination, and it may be exactly what you all have said, which is we want to see the minutes, or we want to see uh we want to have a detailed summary, which really should be.

It shouldn't be necessarily you seeing the minutes, it's probably we'll say to the city, please have this information or present this in your presentation.

This is um, this is what occurred, this is when they came in compliance, this is why there was a gap in time, as if in this case, was it true?

The only evidence we had was uh the individual saying that well, the guy never came.

No, and and and we had we had support of that.

One of these that fell through the cracks because we had somebody change up.

Yes, is it the obligation of the violator to contact the city when they come in compliance?

100%.

Yeah.

Does that happen most of the time?

No, maybe not.

Um but you determine at this hearing the competent substantial evidence to make your decision.

That doesn't have to be it's it's different than uh than a courtroom, and again, for those that don't know, I'm a trial lawyer, so I'm a former prosecutor, so I know how to do these cases.

Um the evidence that is presented before you is how you make your determination.

That's why I got a little concerned about evidence that is discussed that isn't necessarily the proper way we do it.

Um there's nothing wrong with having everybody have that information, that's correct way of doing it, but that should really be coming from uh Nicole or the city when we have that before you.

Um so we'll correct that.

But I want you to say at the next meeting, this is what we need.

This is how you want, because that's what we should be doing, making sure the cases are presented in a way that you can make a decision.

Do we have to wait till the next meeting to do that, or is can we if there's some adjustment we can make as a standard practice that when we have a lien reduction, that we can at least get a summary of the case history on it.

Yeah, I think we've gotten that direction, or again, when I say we, it's really the city.

Right.

Because I'm your attorney, right?

I have to make sure here's what happens.

If an individual sues this board, I'm the one who defends the case, not the city.

Understood.

What I just told you is how I defend it.

I need to have competent substantial evidence for you to make a decision.

Your decision can be completely wrong in everybody's eyes, but it's okay as long as you make as long as you base it on competent substantial evidence.

What we normally have is competent substantial evidence is a presentation by the code officer, because that's that's everything you see, that's competent substantial evidence.

Okay.

What we don't usually see is on these fine reductions, and that's because a lot of times they're just people coming to you in certain circumstances, most of the circumstances, we see somebody selling their property, right?

And there's a there's a lien on there.

And so then you all have, as part of this, you have to adopt a philosophy as to what do you what are you what's your goal with this board, right?

Right.

Because this board is to get compliance because your neighbors have a situation where somebody has done something that's causing them problems.

You have a hoarder, you have, I mean, you've seen all of them today.

You have a hoarder, you have somebody doing short-term rentals, you have somebody you know doing all these things.

So your job is really supposed to be able to get compliance as soon as possible, so we get rid of that nuisance.

Or we do things like these nuisance abatement cases, where the city comes in and cleans it up, so we don't have these problems in the neighborhood.

So you have to decide, and and the reason, honestly, you know, give I'll just give you a couple more minutes of information.

The reason that the way you've done these fine reductions in the past is when we first started doing these, sometimes they came back and said, Yeah, you owe us nothing.

You're the and then we finally had the board adopt a philosophy or policy that says that well, we're not gonna go below the cost, because then you're you know, this these are real costs.

These are city costs, these are administrative costs that have occurred.

So you took that philosophy.

Now, what's the determination as to whether or not somebody should have it reduced?

That is not objective, that is subjective.

But for you to get to that subjective determination, we need to know what you what you want.

I think we heard that today, what you all need.

I just the city needs to present that to you versus you guys coming up with it.

So what's the best way to achieve that?

Do we make a formal request or simply a verbal request?

I'm certainly hearing that the board would like more substantial background on the reductions that come in, and I can make them happen.

And it's a work in progress.

So I think the next couple ones we see, right?

We should probably have comments of this is good enough or this isn't good enough.

Right.

I'll just make one quick comment.

Sure.

Like when the specters show the photographs, if there's two buildings in there, they know which building they're talking about because you had to ask.

I was going to ask the same thing.

Which building are you talking about?

I don't know which one.

And it was in the background, the yellow one.

Yeah.

I was looking at the foreground one.

So they got to identify better what they're showing.

What we're looking at.

And then also what the violations are that there's because they've just shown photograph after photograph after, but no explanation of is it the roof?

Is it this just the sidings of the painting?

You need to make sure that we come out clearer.

What they're saying.

Absolutely.

Happy to accept this feedback.

I'm sure you can understand from our point of view.

We look at this all day.

So it's obviously.

So this is great feedback.

We'll make sure that we point out more clearly.

We shouldn't investigate the case is what you're saying.

If you investigate a case, then you cannot sit as judge.

So I didn't investigate the case, I simply read the notes.

That is fine.

Okay.

So get a better understanding.

Here's the other thing we don't do, and we probably should do it.

So when I handle these cases for other cities, a lot of times I'm sitting in Matthew's seat, so I'm the city attorney, so I'm prosecuting the cases.

Right.

And we also want to make sure that any information you do have, you're sharing it.

So everybody has the same information.

So you're supposed to, every one of you is supposed to walk in here and make base your decision on the same information.

So if if you've had discussions, we want to make sure that that's known.

If you've looked at a document, we want to make sure everybody has that same information.

But I also don't want you to do your own investigations because you know that that's what we run into a problem.

But you could be living in the same neighborhood as one of these houses.

I'm sure you are.