Enforcement board is called to order on July 22nd 19 uh 2025.

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance in the middle of the Mr.

Engel.

Would you lead us to the Pledge of Allegiance?

Of course.

Thank you.

Please be seated.

Agendas of today's meeting are on the wall at 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 who serve voluntarily.

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

The board considers new business items in two parts.

First, the violation and then affirmative relief.

Formal rules of evidence do not apply.

Each side is limited to 15 minutes.

The board may grant additional time.

All proceedings will be conducted in a calm civil manner.

Individuals who conduct themselves otherwise will be asked to leave.

If necessary, they will be escorted from chambers.

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

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

May I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Motion to approve.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

The motion carries.

Moutes are approved.

Next on the agenda are new business items.

Our first case 3.1 is continued to September.

Next agenda item 3.2 is also continued to September.

Doesn't say that.

It's continued from March.

Oh, I see.

Well, this says I see it now.

It's continued from March, but continued to September 23rd.

Okay.

I got you.

All right.

I'm with you now.

3.3 is continued from April 22nd, case 84-26.

Flying respondents, Mary G.

Realty incorporated at 490 Mandalay Avenue in violation of code for permits.

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

Inspector Reese.

Is there uh anyone here to speak on this case?

Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, co-board.

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

This is for 490 Mendeley Avenue, case 84-26.

And what's going on there?

It's going slow today.

Okay.

So we have one violation at this property for section 4-203.a dot one.

Uh no person shall commence any construction, demolition, modification, or renification of a building or structure without first obtaining a building permit.

This is specifically for the deck that was installed in front of the uh uh along the storefronts on the property.

There were multiple violations.

This is a pretty one of the old cases began on September 6th of 2024.

Uh gave multiple compliance dates for this property.

This is a posting of my notice of violation back in September.

And this is the Google Street View.

So what we're talking about today, I know you can't see it here, but it will be the deck along all of this side of the property on the south end.

These are the original photos taken from the previous inspector for the deck that was installed.

There it is.

Oh, okay.

I was beginning to wonder.

I have had communications with the owner.

I have gave him multiple extension extensions to get this permitted.

Uh he had to speak with zoning.

It will not meet zoning.

He needs to resubmit plans so that it meets zoning so it can properly get permitted or remove it altogether.

Uh reason being it's just too high, and it is a hazard for citizens shopping there.

So these are just updated photos that I take in uh June 6th, and deck was still there.

At this point, I had spoken with plenty uh multiple contractors, uh, trying to aid them and guide them so that way they can get with zoning.

And these are my updated photos from today.

The deck itself is starting appeal on the sides, it's become more of a hazard.

I've had workers there very happy to see me moving forward with the case because they are concerned as well.

So right now, there the the permit that they applied for is still in revisions needed.

The reason for that is because it just can't get approved.

They attempted for the flexibility, it's it's just not an option at this time for them.

It will not be approved through zoning.

I do have those emails if you all want to see from zoning that that is what they they had been told.

Um I've had no more communication since then.

So compliance can be met by obtaining an issue permit that is approved through zoning and completing said permit with inspections.

So requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on and before August 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?

I've got uh at least one or two myself.

Yep.

Um so we know it was built without permits.

You said they applied for a permit, but then you also said that uh they looked at getting a variance and it's not going to meet uh the requirements for variance.

So does that mean the only option is to remove it or get rid of it?

I know it's we're we're off on the side here a little bit in terms of a violation, but I'm just curious as to what the path forward is, whether it's just they're not gonna be able to get a permit because they can't get a variance and it's got to be removed.

It doesn't necessarily have to be removed, it's the higher portion that needs to be lowered.

Um, and then they would just have to submit those revisions that is keeping that permit stuck in revisions needed.

Once that is done, they could move forward with the issued permit.

It it they just can't keep it as it is today.

Gotcha.

When was the last time you spoke with the owner?

Um he had can he came in the office on April 6th of 2026, and then from after I've had several conversations after with contractors to guide them exactly what was needed, and you know, I referred them to zoning, and zoning took over from that point, and and then you know it it's just not going to be issued the way it is today.

Inspector, I just have one question.

Do you know how long that unpermitted uh deck has been there?

Um the initial inspection began September 4th of 2024.

24.

It went in prior to that date because it was a stop work order, so the work was already done.

So we're just requiring after the fact permit.

Correct.

Thank you.

Okay, and then I just noticed it looks like it goes across several businesses.

It does, but it is the the owner is is the whole book.

Owns the entire parcel, so he is ultimately responsible for it.

And have any of the the business owners come out and talk to you about it?

So I'm wondering if they're running into trouble.

Yes, I've had employees come and these goodness you're doing something.

I'm surprised no one's has gotten hurt, you know, already with the way it is.

So they are happy that this is being presented today.

Okay, someone just built that over a weekend, you know.

It was very home made.

Okay.

What were they trying to attempt to do with the current to extend the pathway along the store fronts?

I believe, but it's it's just not meeting code.

Any other questions from the board?

I have a first motion of violation, please.

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

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor, aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

I have a second violation motion, please.

Did we get an amount?

150.

159.

Okay.

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

Well, I think that's when they had to have the permit and then have six months to do the revisions after that.

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

Each violation continues to exist.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

The motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector Reese.

Next case 3.4 on our agenda, continued from April 22nd, 2026, case 87-26.

Fine respondents gratis Philius Enterprises LLC at 1700 Gulf to Bay Boulevard.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Inspector Larson, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, Code Board.

My name is Inspector Larson.

This is one we're going to revisit.

Uh if you remember, this is 1700 Gulf to Bay uh coffee shop that was an abandoned construction site.

Um, property maintenance requirements, it was a considered a nuisance, and the board gave them 60 days.

If you remember, we were trying to give them six months, and their two lawyers stood here, and oh, we only need 60 days.

Well, they're not finished, but they have made progress.

Um so I don't know if you all remember where it is.

There's a here it was when it was an abandoned construction site.

Um piles of dirt, various okay.

And this is it back in uh March.

So here now in April, apparently, when the new contractor started working on this thing, it had been leaking, um, it wasn't built to the plans.

Uh they actually had done construction without having uh inspections along the way.

So it was a really big problem.

You see that all the uh wood is rotted, they had to replace everything.

It was a big job.

This is the guy that told us he'd be done in 60 days, and that's what the board gave him.

Windows torn out.

All right, now this is yesterday.

They put the building back together.

You see they poured driveway, um, they put down uh asphalt for a parking lot.

We could do one if there was one I wanted to show.

But actually, if you look on the on the right side there, they've got drainage areas, and they have to actually put sod in.

I mean, they they've really come a long way, just not where you know, in the time frame that we did that the board gave them.

So uh like I say it was an abandoned construction site.

The permits had expired, but now they're they're back on in the game.

Um, the permits are good.

Uh the contractor has been changed, construction needs to be completed.

Like I say, the board gave them 60 days, didn't happen, but I've gotten a bunch of excuses.

Something about uh the right-of-way between the pizza and them being driving through the parking lot over to 19 and all that.

Uh there seems to be some issues going on there.

Um we were asking originally for October 22nd, which was six months.

So I'm not sure of what uh what y'all want to give them now.

They are doing work on it, and they're their work is being inspected, it is professional, and they are passing inspections, so you know.

I think they bid off a little more than they thought they were going to at that point.

Um like I say, they they were like 60 days, so you you're talking 90 more days, and 90 days plus, yeah.

I think that's reasonable.

Yeah, uh, what is it?

No, it's uh July, August, September, October, yes, sir.

I think another 90 days should they should be pretty wrapped up by then.

Okay, okay.

Is that it?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Um's the violation at this point.

Well, they didn't meet the 60 days that the board gave them.

Yeah, but is it unsafe now or not?

It's not completed.

Is it unsafe?

It it's not in compliance because it's not completed, which that was what we gave them time to complete the job.

Would unsafe be a the different something different other than I mean, we're we're I don't know that unsafe is is remaining.

I'm just reading from what it says here violation of the code for unsafe building.

Oh it was an abandoned construction site, so at that point it becomes a positive.

Uh they just didn't do it in the time that you gave them.

So I think now it's uh I mean I'm not sure how how you handle it, but so can we put in a motion to extend?

Well, but his the the city's request is requesting compliance by October, which is another three months, and that based on the progress that we can see in the photos.

Uh my personal opinion is that they're well on their way, and if they keep going the way they're going, they're gonna be done well before then.

They are you know they're they're very very close that they've got concrete board and putting down sod and everything.

They're very close, and October is generous, and it kind of forces them back to the original timeline, and I agree with the inspector in that they may not have realized what a task they were taking on if they you know were representing the owner and not the actual contractor.

But I think I think unsafe would still be in place because it's still in the construction, so to me it would be considered unsafe because it's not a good idea.

Well, not only construction site is unsafe by virtue of being under construction.

That's yeah, but it's unsafe because they didn't meet they did not meet this the 60 days the condition is not relevant because they didn't come in compliance to it doesn't matter what it currently is until they're done, they're not in compliance unless you change your order, right?

Right.

So what I'm saying is their condition doesn't have to be unsafe to still not be in compliance, what I'm saying.

I think we just need to put in a motion for extension.

Well how hold it, I gotta go.

Let's get to the question before we get to the motion.

Mr.

Salzman, with them not being in compliance, would there be any fines accruing a original five to 150 a day?

Have we hit that date?

No.

The 60 days haven't this case was originally presented to the board in April at the board continued it basically after hearing it.

You continued it to today for an action to happen today.

So there's no fine improvements.

All right, thank you.

And I I think that's basically can we go back to your request on the screen in terms of what what the city is asking?

I think the city is asking for compliance by October, and if it doesn't meet compliance by October, that's when the fine starts.

So this is what they're asking for.

Yeah, the 250 starts then.

I was like concerned about the previous 150 a day.

I think we gave them more time to finish.

I don't think we made any motion, uh, any motions regarding any fines.

So there have been the fine assessed to date, and the city's requesting compliance by October, which seems reasonable to me.

Unless the board has other opinions or whatsoever.

Well, it's it's not really an extension.

They're asking for uh uh a motion that they have to finish by October or then the fine start.

I understand, but they are really working to get it done.

I agree, I go with board member Gerd that I think it would just give them a little bit more time with taking a really drastic action.

They're not they're really showing good faith, I think.

I I would say that uh an extension is implied in the motion in that we're not giving them 30 days, we're giving them 90 days, and that that leaks of extension to me in terms of the in terms of the way it's worded.

So I'm I'm good with the city's recommendation unless somebody else has it.

There's a lot of activity and a lot of discussion going on in here.

I think it is too much time.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um Madam Secretary.

All right.

Sorry.

Is there any any other discussion from the board or questions?

I think it's just too much time.

I think 60 is more.

But that's just my opinion.

That's what the city's asking for.

I mean, I'm inclined to just give it to them and let them finish.

I mean, they it's been a lot of work I know to clean that thing up and they're making good progress, and I don't necessarily want to be a guy to penalize that or be you know, penalize that.

Say again what do they need to do to be compliant?

They need to finish their project and get a certificate of occupancy, I would assume.

Final inspection, certificate of occupancy.

Right.

Well, you had no way of seeing inside how far along they've gone.

I have been inside uh not recently, but um when they were tearing it all apart, but they're passing inspections.

I I have co-workers that have been doing you know uh electrical inspections, uh plumbing various things, uh siding.

So they are passing their inspections, and um I was just wondering how far along it is inside to warrant 90 days.

That's why I'm asking.

Mr.

Gary.

Yeah, Kevin Garriott with the uh building department.

Pardon me, I was part of the noise there in the back as we were talking with counsel as to where we are on this.

So let me try and explain a little bit.

The uh building and site were unsafe because it had a permit, and it got so far along in construction as you see.

Let's see, I don't know if I can find the pictures back up in these days here, well now even before that, we were looking at this.

This is when we brought it to you two months ago.

This is the way it looked.

So we declared it unsafe.

We at that point were suggesting six months for completion.

And with their help, they being the neighbor and the um property owner of this property, they were both here, and they thought they could be done within 60 days, I believe.

So the board at that point decided, well, let's just check on them in sixty days and see where they are.

So this is really just kind of a stop along that way.

It isn't like a new hearing, it's continuation of that hearing two months ago, with the progress that we're seeing that now looks like that's a good one there to um see that they've made this this good progress, but they are not done.

Um it looks like they probably will be, but you know, who can predict the future?

So any questions on that?

Does that make any sense at all to all of the board?

So the site was unsafe and the and the condition it was in before, but now they've gone ahead and they've done progress with their permits and produced the building that we're seeing in these pictures.

And now I guess the question I'm trying to wrap my head around, I'm sure the board is too, is this truly an unsafe site at this point, or is this now just a construction site that is just going through the building permit process where as long as they stay compliant with the timelines and the provisions of the Florida Building Code, everything is okay now.

That's just what's going through my brain.

It's a good cause.

Yes, yes.

I mean, there is good progress.

Um have you have you spoken to the owner and kind of got engage of when it will be when they feel it will be in completion?

I spoke to general contractor on site um about a month ago, and he was he was complaining about the the access from the pizza place, and I and he claims he's gonna be finished in a reasonable amount of time, but he didn't give me an exact date.

Uh construction's not that way, which as you know.

And that was a month ago.

Sorry.

And that was a month ago.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, they were there was people everywhere.

They hadn't poured the the concrete yet, they didn't have the um asphalt down, it was still dirt.

But um I uh since then I I we do see progress and basically um is it still in safe though?

Or is it just a defense up around it, which is great.

Basically, the unsafe what we were calling it was an abandoned construction site.

Right.

We weren't specifically saying it's unsafe, but that's encompassed in abandoned construction site.

So it no, it's not an abandoned construction site at this time.

They are working on it, but um you know I I believe that that our goal is to make sure they finish.

And and with the track record of abandoning the job, now they've come back to the job.

Well, we don't know if they're gonna finish.

I mean, we hope they are, uh it appears that way.

Basically, it's kind of a progress report, I feel that what we're here for today.

Isn't that governed by building construction permits?

The Florida building definitely governs like construction sites and timelines for how long a permit should be approved and how long construction sites should be active, it covers all those things.

I think you might be missing that it was abandoned for like two years.

I hear that.

I I definitely hear that.

Yeah.

My thought processes though, I understand it was abandoned, and that's not a good thing.

We certainly don't want to see that.

However, that is no longer the case, and the unsafe portion of this building is no longer applicable because it's no longer really unsafe.

And if they don't follow the process and their permit, um I guess expires for lack of a better word, then at that case we would maybe take this one back.

It just it seems like there's nothing really wrong at this point.

And I I hate to say that we're having this conversation under the public, but I mean I wasn't really aware of this case because it was continued since before I was doing this board, but just when I'm thinking through this logically, it's like well, it just seems like it's a construction site now.

And that would take us back to where we were three years ago.

That uh looks somewhat similar to this, and there it was falling under then the time frame of the Florida building code, and all at once it stopped, and it sat there and it sat there year after year, and the wood rotted away, it all had to be replaced.

And so we would be back at that point.

Yes, that could happen.

Okay, but it is an active construction site at the moment, and I think they have a permit.

Yeah, so I think that giving them the original October date would be a good thing.

That seems true to me.

I mean, is there any objection from the board on the October date?

No, no, I just don't think that there's a violation that they need an extension for.

I think we gave them an extension and they have to bring it back to us because we gave them an extension and they're not finished.

An extension for what?

They're not completed with their construction, that's governed by another body that's not that's not our question.

But we gave them 60 days to finish it.

Completion of construction.

We're just looking at is it safe or is it not safe?

No, that's that's not the only thing we're looking at.

What we're looking at is I think we had an original motion back in the day that they were in violation.

We gave them we offered them like six months to get in, you know, to get the thing done, and they wanted less time than that, so we gave them 60 days, and now we're revisiting that and saying okay, they're making good progress.

The city's asking us to uh make a declaration that if they're not done in three months, then the fines will start accruing.

That sounds entirely reasonable to me.

I think we should just get an extension.

Let's just get it.

All right.

So can we have uh your order request back up on the screen, Mr.

Larson?

And then I will request a motion.

All right.

Um 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.

All in favor?

Aye.

All right, all opposed, no, violations correct.

I'd like to poll the board to make sure we have a quorum.

Well, I think you have five to two.

Yeah.

Okay.

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 October 22nd, 2026.

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

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

I may have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

No.

Nay.

Motion carried.

Thank you, Inspector Larson.

Thank you.

Next on our agenda.

Number 3.5 is continued to August 26, number 3.6.

Case 130-26.

Fine respondents Edward and Alana Papadami at 1316 Pierce Street in violation of code for residential brass parking and issue an order with a compliance deadline.

And fine, if compliance is not met.

Is it met?

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Sir, would you please come forward?

I'd like to say that the property has come into compliance, and the city's just gonna request a declaration of violation.

We just haven't never spoken to them before.

Okay.

So they showed up.

Fair enough.

Um, I think since they're here, we at least uh you know uh owe them an opportunity to Sir.

Would you give us your name and address for the record?

My name is I'm sorry, can you can you say that in the closer to the microphone?

It was on me.

It was up with me.

Okay.

Um six five five seven we'll see.

Can you please speak closer to the mic?

Um I do want to see five five shares.

Thank you, sir.

Um you said that you were asking for a declaration of violation.

Yes, okay.

Sir, do you admit or deny the violation?

So do you admit or deny the violation?

I admit that we're parking over there.

But I told them to win a thousand times, so I think they're going to have a to do it.

They're gonna do that to do this anymore.

I'm sorry, sir.

I'm gonna ask you to come closer.

I think they would have to do this anymore because they're gonna have to get out.

See as a parking song, that's why.

I understand.

I just want to be able to understand what you're saying.

I I spoke to my dance, and um they say they're gonna not want to park it anymore.

Okay.

So the question we have for you is do you admit to the violation or do you deny it?

I don't deny it.

I saw the parking there.

Okay.

But uh let's just be fixed, which is not being fixed as well.

Thank you.

So counsel, did we take that as an admission?

He said it does not deny.

Did we really need that when there's a decoration?

Well, if we're gonna make a declaration of violation, I mean, you know, further need to make a finding that he was in violation, he corrected it.

So I would take it as your normal normal case.

We would have to present it.

I didn't take that as an admission.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Um we appreciate it.

Um if there's anything else to add, we'll call you back up.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir.

That's mine.

Um before Inspector Dixon starts.

My understanding from what the the owner of the property said is that it's unclear whether there was an actual admission of violation or not.

So I would like to give the inspector the opportunity to present whatever data he has if he wishes.

Um the violations in compliance.

Yeah.

Okay.

So do you want to try?

The the problem is is that he said that there was a violation at some time, but what does it say when the time period was?

So is it after the notice?

If it wasn't after the notice, so we you can't find the violation that was corrected.

So we still need to hear when the violation occurred.

Right.

That's what I'm saying.

So I would ask that if the inspector has the data and could present us the data so that we can actually make sense of it and understand and make a determination of a violation, then good.

Um, then we'll have to see where we go from there.

Over to you, inspector.

Okay.

This is Vicky Settett's case.

I uh I did update the slides, but uh, of course, I'm not Vicky, I'm Greg Dixon, co-compliance inspector of the city of Clearwater.

This is case 130-26 for 1316 Pierce Street.

Um it's not letting me take it to full screen.

There's one basic violation here for uh residential grass parking.

No violation was sent in April with a compliance date of April 19th.

The certified mail receipt was returned back to the office on April the 14th.

Um here's uh grass parking in March.

Here's grass parking in June.

It's the uh the red car there on the right.

It's the building that's that's on the right side of the picture there as you see it.

Here's another picture of grass parking in June.

Compliance date was in April.

Here's the picture in July.

Here's the the uh posting for the notice of hearing, and this is this morning.

I didn't see any uh vehicles parked in the grass, they were in the driveway.

Compliance could be met for grass parking by parking on one vehicle on the grass parallel and adjacent to the driveway.

So uh we are requesting a declaration of violation for this property.

Okay, in our case that would be just the first motion, and you're not asking for any fines or anything else.

No, sir.

Okay, all right.

That would be one of our other motions other than our stance specifically.

Okay, so that works.

So does the board have any questions of the inspector before we proceed?

No.

All righty.

Um do we want to speak any further with the I think we've gotten what we need from the property owner unless somebody else wants to have questions for him.

I do not all right.

I think we're ready for a uh declaration of violation then Mr.

Chairman.

I'll move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the after tape it 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 a 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.

Sir, thank you for coming to speak today.

Thank you.

Where we have uh issued that there was a declaration of violation and that there is no fine imposed.

But you do have uh rules that govern any future parking.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

Moving on.

Uh agenda item 3.7 has been withdrawn.

Agenda item 3.8, case 132-26.

Find respondents.

Chandra Ramnari Ramnarian at 1475 Park Street in violation of code for exterior surfaces.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Inspector, you have the floor.

Afternoon, board correctly.

Code compliance inspectors, case 132-26 for 1475 Park Street.

There's one violation at the property for exterior surfaces.

This is the property, it's a duplex, it's just got some exterior surface issues.

There's a big hole in the uh core carport there.

And here it is this morning.

It's basically in the same condition as it was when it was cited.

So compliance can be met by replacing any defective structural and decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, faded peeling paint, and rotten wood.

The city would like to request compliance on or before 8226 or impose a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation of compliance is not met.

Thank you.

Board, any questions?

Have you spoken to the owner?

No, the green card was returned, but nobody's ever nobody's reached out to us.

I just didn't see the picture of the thing.

They signed for the mail.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

So they got the receipt.

Um you did post the property, I presume.

No, because uh the mail that we sent certified was signed for.

Certified, then we have all right.

Any other questions?

May I have a first declaration, please?

I'm gonna respond in violation of the code is referred to in the FD in this case.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

I have a second motion, please.

I moved down on an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation on or before August 22nd, 2026.

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

Each violation continues to exist if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such a lien is filed.

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

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector.

Item 3.9 on our agenda is um being continued to August.

Item 3.10, case 134-26.

Find respondents Deborah Hicks at 1308 Roosevelt Avenue in violation of code for exterior services and community garden maintenance and issue an order with the compliance deadline and find if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Inspector Dixon, you have the floor.

Uh Inspector Dixon, co-compliance inspector for the city of Clearwater.

This case 134-26 for 1308 Roosevelt Avenue.

There are two violations on the property, one for code section 3-2602 for operational requirements for community gardens, and code section 3-1502 B for exterior surfaces.

Um they have come into compliance for the operational requirements for the community garden.

So I'll just be asking for a declaration of violation for that.

I don't know if you want to knock that out at the beginning or wait till the end.

If they're in compliance on that, we could go ahead and address that separately and ask for a declaration of violation.

And that was for uh which for me guards operational requirements for community.

Okay.

Somebody give me a uh a declaration of violation.

Yes.

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

The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing.

And to enter an order that no fine be imposed.

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

The violation the violation continues to exist.

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Inspector.

All right.

The violation for the exterior surface still exists.

Notice went out in uh April for the compliance date in May, and the certified mail receipt was received back in May.

This is the community garden that I brought last month that uh had some trash and debris.

The grounds are cleaned up, it's organized, but this shed still needs some attention.

So that's what we're talking about here.

I just need the front of that shed to match the other three sides.

This is uh what it looked like the day that was um cited.

Here it is today.

The sun is shining in my eyes, so have a bad picture, but it's still the same condition.

Uh the other three sides are in compliance.

So compliance can be met for the exterior surfaces by finishing the front side of the shed, attached panels to make the front look uniform with the rest of the shed and apply paint to match.

The slide's not catching up, but I'd like compliance on or before September 1st, 2026, or impose a fine of 150 dollars a day.

September 21st.

Yeah.

First of all.

September 1st, yes.

Oh, there we go.

All right, good.

It's always a little bit easier memory wise with everything going on to be able to see it read it if need be and see them now.

Thank you.

All right.

Board have any questions?

I do.

Okay.

I just noticed there's a lot of debris around that building.

I thought that was there's a couple things leaned up against it, but it's it's not uh near what it was before.

Sure.

If we consider it in compliance, okay.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a first motion, please?

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

Okay, all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

I have a second motion, please.

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

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

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

May have a second.

Second all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector.

Thank you, board.

Item 3.11 on our agenda has been withdrawn.

Item 3.12, case 136-26.

Find respondents.

Forgive my pronunciations here if they're not good.

Boichita Sosano and Meta Silagi Jarda at 2036 San Marino Way South.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

No.

This one will actually be a declaration of violation.

They did come into compliance for the exterior storage.

And they've been at compliance since about the 13th.

But I just want that declaration to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Very good.

Thank you.

Um if there are no questions from the board, then I'll entertain a motion.

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 in 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 in the violation continues to exist.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Inspector Casmus.

Good afternoon, board.

Daniel Kasman, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater.

I don't know if you I'm sorry, do you need to declare this one before I jump on it?

Yeah, let me let me add it into the record.

Jump to have any.

Next R item agenda is item 3.13 case 137-26.

In violation of code for exterior surfaces, and issued an order with compliance deadline and fine and compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Inspector Casman, it's all yours.

Daniel Casman, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater.

This is case number 137-26 for 2048 Loma Linda Way South.

There's one violation here for code section 3-1502B for exterior surfaces.

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

There was also an affidavit of posting and a notice appearing for today's hearing.

This is 2048 Loma Linda Way South.

This is in the Valencia Park neighborhood if you've ever been up that way.

I've gotten some complaints at the property, but then it also had noticed there were some issues with the exterior of the home itself.

As you can see up top, there's some rotting fascia boards, but also some chipped and peeling paint on the walls below, though there is a lot of greenery in the way.

This is right below the window in the front of the home.

Went back after initially looking at it, hadn't sent a courtesy letter, but there were still issues at the home.

Same things had not been addressed.

There's a better look at that wall down below.

This is the day of my posting after the notice of violation was sent out, and I did not get the green card back.

The property was in still in the same state, and then this was the notice of hearing for today's hearing.

Again, property was in still the same state.

And this was today this morning.

Let me know if you want me to go back to anything if it's tough to see.

So this is again the same wall.

If you notice the left, that teal walls chipping and peeling still.

The pillars out front still have the same issues.

The boards up top are still rotten.

So compliance will be met for exterior surface by repair any damage to the exterior, cleaning the exterior where necessary, and repainting whether it's chip and peeling paint.

And I'm requesting compliance on before August 22nd, 2026, or a fine of 150 dollars per day for violate for each day the violation continues to exist.

Thank you.

Questions from the board?

Just have you talked to them?

Um I have talked to them.

Uh I think there's some issues happening possibly with foreclosure, which is I don't know if they're willing or able to do the repairs.

So, but I had to go forward with the cases anyway, regardless of what's what's going on.

Okay.

So in four months when you first went out there and took the uh first picture, nothing's been done at all.

There was some, there was another violation for exterior storage, which the owner did take care of, but I don't know if they were like I said, willing or able to actually work on the building itself with the other things going on.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a first motion, please?

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

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

May I have a second declaration for second motion, please?

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

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

Each violation continues to exist.

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

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector.

Next on our agenda is item 3.14.

It's been withdrawn.

Number 3.15 has also been withdrawn.

Number 3.16 has been withdrawn.

Case our agenda item 3.17, case 144, 141-26.

Find respondents, FTMC LLC at 1627 Gulf to Bay Boulevard.

In violation of code for signage without permits and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Inspector Bernhardt, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, board.

Stephen Gorka, Sign Inspector for the City of Clearwater.

This is K case uh 141-26 for 6027 Gulf to Bay Boulevard.

There's one violation regarding code section 4-1002.

Signage without permits.

I posted the property on April 23rd, 26, and compliance date was May 21st, 26.

So the sign we're talking about is this one above the entrance.

And the complaint original was about multiple signage, including on the side of the building.

That's all been removed.

But this is a painted sign.

This is actually particular, a film that's applied to the surface directly.

It still requires a permit, although there's no hardware involved.

It's more about aesthetical reasons.

So the sign appears to be larger than 24 square feet.

And I spoke with property owner, not with the property owner, with the business owner, I'm sorry, uh, already in October 25th.

And he mentioned that he wants to install a wall sign there, a permanent sign.

And then it went back and forth.

So I said he either should get a permit for the painted sign or remove it.

Or you know, having a permit for a wall for a wall sign, which he wants to uh install there.

But uh again, I spoke with him on several occasions in March 26.

He said that he has a sign in production that's in Romania, uh, the production facility, and uh again I I spoke with him on multiple occasions again, and there's nothing nothing being done, and that's on uh July 20.

The sign is still there.

Um there are no permit on files, no applications for any for neither for the sign he plans to install nor for the the painted sign.

So compliance for the unpermitted sign can be met by removing the sign or obtaining a permit.

Um requesting compliance on or before August 22nd, 26.

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

Thank you.

Any questions?

Board, you have any questions?

I have one.

Uh can you make it clear for me what you uh what he said about Romania, a sign being made in Rome?

Yeah, I mean, he has um he wants to install an illuminated wall sign, a professional made sign, and he said he has it in production in Romania in Europe.

So I heard that.

That's what he told me again.

But I he still needs to apply for a permit first because I told him that sign he has in production may not even be allowed to install.

So uh that's still in question, and I haven't seen any plans or anything of that.

So yeah, I was just wondering if he's heard of we do make signs here.

Right, in the right.

Okay, in Florida.

Okay.

I don't know how long the shipping takes, but I can't imagine that the case is open for a long time now.

So I have a question.

Did he mention he was able to produce a contract or something that says that there is a sign being made in Romania or no?

Inspector Burkhardt, I wouldn't expect you to speak for the building department, but I would imagine uh based on our experience the proper sequence would be to submit for a permit and submit whatever sign he's gonna put up there to make sure it's approved before he buys it, installs it so that it meets all the Florida building codes, wind code, etc.

etc.

Would you have any disagreement with that?

No, I I agree.

I I explained everything to him.

I said um he needs to get a contractor, even if it's I mean he can have it in production, but the installation needs to be done by a licensed contractor.

So they they need to submit a permit for that.

Right.

I hope they get it right in Rome.

And I believe the building code also would.

I'm sorry, that's depth on your code.

I I I would imagine that the building department might have something to say about what's or the Florida building code might dictate what is acceptable in terms of size and design and everything else.

So all right.

Any other questions from the board?

I have a first motion, please.

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

I have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

I have a second motion, please.

I move to enter an order uh requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before August 22nd of 2026.

Each for each day, each violation continues to exist.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Next case, item agenda 3.18, case 142-26, fine respondents MCT.

2022 06 LLC triple key LLC at 810 South Missouri Avenue.

In violation of code for signs attached to trees, temporary signs and issue order of the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Sir, please come forward and give us your name.

I'm not sure he was not sure if he was here to be sworn.

Were you sworn in, sir?

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay, good.

Sorry.

You're good.

Thanks.

Always nice to make sure.

Jason Martin.

Um that's my business, 810, South Missouri.

But my home is 1621 Gulf Boulevard, so I don't know which areas you're wanting.

So all right.

And you are the uh that that is your business that's there?

Correct.

Um business was actually started by a friend of mine, Noah Curry.

Okay, and I'm gonna I don't I don't want to necessarily cut you off too quickly, but our our process here is that we want to know who you are.

Oh, and then we're gonna hear from the inspector, and then uh what is your relation to the property?

You're simply are you the owner of the owner of the business leasing the building?

Okay, but you're not the owner of the property.

No, okay.

So I'm gonna ask counsel um if uh a tenant of a property is authorized to uh speak with us or testify in a or well.

The only concern is is that any violation you find is against the property.

So for size.

So do you have the authority to act on behalf of the owner?

I do not because I'm I'm just a lease E of the property, but I I have information that I don't know if it's even gonna be a violation because like I said, the signs have been removed.

I know who put them up, they've been taken down, businesses changed.

Stamp a little bit closer because I can't hear it.

So there's a whole bunch of like um business was started under a different business.

I have it now, it's under a different business, and the leasey, the signs that were there are no longer there.

Um so like that's why I'm coming here, but are they in compliance?

No.

All right.

Which if there if there's no objection, I'd like to go and hear from the inspector.

And since this gentleman is here, I'd like to afford him uh sure, yeah, a bit of time to address the issues for our clarification, but we know at the end of the day, the end of the issue of property uh not the tenant or bus or inspector Berg.

Sure, we have to admit or uh he can't own the doesn't represent the property owner.

Gotcha.

Stephen Burkhart, sign inspector for the city of Clive Order.

This is case 142-26 for 810 South Missouri.

There's one violation regarding code section 3-1806A, temporary sign criteria and limitations.

The notice of violation was mailed um March 10 of 26.

Um certified mail was not signed.

That's why I posted the property on April 7th, 26.

Compliance date, April 17th, 26.

There are multiple temporary banner signs uh installed at the property.

One here at the trees picture is from February 4th of 26.

That was that was a violation in itself.

Uh like uh we don't allow any signs attached to vegetation increase.

There is a banner sign installed at the building.

Actually, three banner signs, as you see, one's already falling down here.

There's a different one on the side, and there's one on top.

We only allow one banner sign per parcel for up to 30 days per calendar year.

So it's a it's just a temporary sign solution.

It should be there before a business installed a permanent sign, for example.

It's a temporary solution, it's not a permanent sign.

That picture is taken in April 17th.

Um, one banner is already gone and off it fell down, the other is half done, there's still one banner installed.

It's in June, still banners.

It's back up.

The banner is back up on this.

Yeah, it's it's probably falling down with the wheel.

I don't know.

Uh, but again, there's still it's still not in uh compliance as of today.

Actually, I want all today, and uh they'll still ban us installed.

So just for clarification, that's where Marco's pizza used to be, right?

Up yes, yes, there was uh previous mock's pizza, right?

It's unfortunate they're not there anymore.

Wow, we're banned.

Compliance can be omit by removing all banner signs.

Um again uh requesting compliance on the before August 22nd, 26.

If the violation continues to exist in postal fine of 150 per day, each data violation continues to exist.

Any questions?

Inspector, the uh banner signs, I didn't know they're only good for 30 days.

They're only good for 30 days, and one is the maximum possible that can be used.

And so it's it's too many, and um they are just they're too long for many months.

Okay, so it's not it's not uh some business want to use them instead of installing a permanent sign, but it's not attractive and you see it's not a good out.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

All right.

Have you um spoken with the owner about the issue?

Again, I never had any contact with the owner.

It was only through the posting.

Um they didn't they didn't sign a mail, they I I couldn't get hold of the LMA before.

Okay.

Have you spoken with the tenant?

No, I met him the first time today.

Anytime I came out and posted it was close to business, so I have no contact with them.

Okay.

And that first uh your first picture, I couldn't hardly see.

It's tied between two trees, two parts of trees.

I think it's mean meanwhile it fold down and just hanging on one tree, but not so real.

Yeah, it's not very good solution.

All right.

Um before I ask for a declaration of violation, uh, I think we could go ahead and do that, but I would like to hear from the tenant if there's no objection.

I think uh it might help give a little more understanding regardless of how the fact that uh we have a motion to do and it's against the owner and not the tenant.

I would like to see what data he has to offer if there's no objection.

Yeah, I'd like to hear sir.

Would you come for us and just share with us briefly what you know?

Yes, sir.

Um, so like I was saying earlier, Noah Curry is a friend of mine.

Um he is one that started the business uh back in October.

He's the one that put the temporary signs up.

He since um since October, he's owns a business and also pizza place in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Um I've known him from Knoxville, Tennessee.

I also know Max Results Physical Therapy.

So him being my friend, he was like, Hey, do you want to just take this business over?

Um he got engaged, his fiance doesn't want him traveling as much as it was before, so I said, sure, I'll take the business over.

So as of January 1, I took the business over.

Um as far as today, there are no signs on the vegetation.

There is a sign where that in that corner lot, but that's the 7-Eleven sign, it's not a pizza sign.

So it actually has 7-11.

So that's not that's not our sign.

We do only have the one sign, which is temporary because we're waiting on the signed company's sign code, and then we're supposed to get the permitting and get us a backlit LED sign.

Uh so we are using it as a temporary sign, but the other ones have been taken down, so there is no other signs there.

We only one we have right now is the one that's up on top.

The temporary.

The the gentleman that you referenced.

Noah Curry.

Right.

Is he the owner of the building, or was he just the no, he was just a he was the Lasee of the LLC before I took it over and now it's my LLC.

So okay, thank you very much.

Do you understand what the inspector's uh describing in terms of what the code is?

Yes, I do.

And so that's what I was saying.

As of right now, the only sign we have left is the one that's up top, and we were using that until we get the backlit LED sign put in place.

So I understand that I need to do that, but I would like to actually have a little bit longer because it's taking a lot of time for those signed companies to apparently get permitting and design it and put it out, but it's understood.

Kind of a pain to I have a question.

Um have you been in contact with the owner in regards to getting a permit for that to put in to install that sign once it's completed for the sign?

I haven't got a contact with the uh landlord because he had to approve the new logo because our logo has changed.

Um and he has approved the logo or for for us to get the sign.

So but I I didn't actually tell him that I actually got this paper because we thought it was us.

Gotcha.

But we appreciate you coming in and give us what data.

Well you could.

Can I just answer with a quick question?

Certainly.

Do you have the paperwork showing the sign has been ordered and it's in process?

And have you been able to reach the page?

I have an email from sign.

Yeah.

Which is actually literally like a block over from us.

Right.

So we do have an email from them saying that they're they're giving us trying to get permitting.

Okay.

Before they added.

We have contacted three signed companies.

They all have told us the same thing.

Permitting is taking forever, and then they won't give us a uh the cost of the sign until they actually know what size sign gets can be up there.

Okay.

So we're kind of in this like holding pattern until the sign companies kind of get.

I would suggest you get his card and send him any correspondence you get from the sign company.

Absolutely.

We will have a uh back to the uh Inspector Burkhardt.

Thank you, sir, for coming.

We appreciate it.

Well, I have a question, but it was never mind.

If you have a question for I was just basically she asked what I was going to ask, you have no idea who's even applied for a permit for our permanent sign.

I've I've been told that um fast signs has applied, and I also have yeah, but when I'm trying to find out when um we took it over in January, and I believe it had been like end of February, first of March that we reach out to them.

Um they actually came down for lunch.

We need to try it.

It's better than Marcos.

But um four months is combined.

No word on a property.

Absolutely.

And I'm that's that falls on me.

I'm the I'm a physical therapist.

I work Monday through Friday.

I also want Shoreline Docks, I built Docks and Marinas.

I also own four Theresby Clinics in Knoxville.

I also own Canine Defense System and Oak Bridge.

But that has nothing to do with it.

So it is yeah, but it's on my fault that if it hasn't been followed up on, I'm like when that that's definitely on me.

I let that go through.

I that's my that's my fault.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you for the question because it answered my questions about the timeline on this.

So I appreciate that.

Inspector, I got my question answered uh by Mr.

Engels' question.

Any other questions from the board?

Um because of the time in this thing, it would seem that the city's request appears reasonable to me, but I will defer to the board to um I'm just wondering on the subject of um, you know, there's there's little or no data in terms of when he's gonna actually be able to get a permanent sign.

And uh with the I I can appreciate that the fact that the city is asking for compliance about a month from now or a month from today.

Um the only concern I might have about any of it is that uh the gentleman has a new business and he's taken responsibility to the fact that it doesn't have a sign.

Um just thinking out loud and thinking ahead.

Uh one month if he doesn't have a sign manufactured permitted, uh manufactured and installed a month from today, then he has no signage for his business.

Is that something the board wants to consider or do we simply declare a violation and move on?

Can I just ask a quick question?

Have you checked Accelera to find out if there's a permit for his sign?

Yeah, I checked this no uh application for it.

Okay, there's not okay.

Well, sir, come back up.

I mean, if there's conflicting data.

We'd like to have our clear that up for us.

Clear it up.

Clear it up.

I I don't know.

I will as soon as I leave here, I will be on the phone with Fast Signs.

I might even drive over there and be like, hey, what's going on with this process?

Again, my fault, I'm a busy individual.

Understood.

It would be incumbent upon the signed people to submit for permit through the cellar uh permit portal.

And if they had done that, then I would imagine that Inspector Burkhart would be able to see that that sign application there.

That's that's fairly cut and dry.

And if I can get a hold of that paperwork when I go over there, I'll stop by there, and if I do, I'll email it to you.

And if they haven't started it, I will shoot you an email saying, hey, they haven't started yet, but and I keep you guys in the that would explain the four months past and had the metaphor.

Absolutely, yes.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, yeah.

Thanks for clearing that.

And like I said, I don't I and all the signs are down now except for the one sign that's in the temporary at the top.

And so and that one at the top is not compliance with the code, right?

Right.

Yeah, well, partially because it's a long time, but again, uh I'm not against um giving more time other than circumstances, so that's but I mean all he's gotta do to comply is take down that sign then, right?

Yeah, but then he has no signage for business.

Yeah, correct.

That was yeah, we want to are you able to extend uh another 30 days for that sign banner.

So we also just want to um if it's not in a sell out, it could be on the desk of some planners, they have their own system in the computer.

They have their own system in the computer.

Sometimes it's not in the system yet.

I got you the permit, so I can't I can say 100% sure there's no permit submitted.

There can be an application on someone's desk.

Yeah.

And uh we're working hard to get the permit done quite one.

So and now I if I get his information now that I know that this is early existing.

I saw I got the piece of paper at the at the uh pizza place, so I showed up.

Um didn't even forward it to the landlord because I thought again thought it was me.

Now that I have this information, I will communicate directly with them and say, hey, this is the company, and this is what's going on, and I will keep you up to date.

But again, up to this point, I didn't even know that that was something I had to do.

Great.

Okay, I think it's important that you communicate that to the landlord as well.

Well, I'll definitely let the land know that for that to Inspector.

You say that it might not even be in the system yet.

Do you think that August 22nd would be enough time for a permit to uh obtained, or should we consider long or how long is the approval process for a scientifically?

Do we have any information on that?

No, I can't I can't tell.

It depends up on what the workload is and uh the production of uh the sign would be a more bigger concern, especially what's an LE sign.

Yeah, that's a bigger concern than the permit.

I would say, but uh I I can't give any.

Will we impose soon, maybe moving into September?

And I'm again, I guess I need to check that because I was very specific on the signs that I like for my businesses.

I like an LED backlit sign so it vibrates through with a Dustin sensor on them.

Like all my clinics have the code box.

So all the work visible signs, so I'm very specific on what I get.

I just don't want to light up there with a flashlight, so my son has very specific.

So maybe that means maybe we might problem that they're taking longer because I'm very specific on how I want it built.

Well, it has to be approved, whatever you come up with still has to be approved, correct?

And that's why I thought because I was so spit specific and anal.

This is why they're having issues with the process.

Remember, like the most important thing is that what's out there now comes down by a certain date, not necessarily what ends up getting approved.

Right, correct, yeah.

That's where I think it's more of a consideration of that the board may or may not be willing to offer, you know, as a as a courtesy to to this gentleman and his business more than anything else.

It really beyond that, as far as our motions and ruling has really has nothing to do with us.

So you can gamble on like a crazy sign with all kinds of cool stuff on it, or you could do something more bare bones and maybe get it real quick or something.

You come and try my pizza, I'll do that.

Okay, yeah, I would point out as well that the inspector has some latitude if he knows that there's a sign-in permitting and it's being manufactured and scheduled for install or something in that process.

The inspector has some latitude about when he brings this back to us for notice for violations.

Does that mean that we have to entertain the temper sign?

It's out of compliance.

No, it's I mean, we we go ahead and make our emotions.

I'm just saying in terms of uh of a deadline here, uh whatever deadline we set.

Okay.

So can I put in a motion to extend to September 22nd?

You could put in a motion for whatever date you want, and board's gonna vote on it.

So the temp sign can stay up there even if we give an extra time.

Well, that's my point.

They're requesting compliance on or before whatever date we give them.

So he he's that sign's got to come down by whatever date by that we set.

So if we give it until September, uh he still has a banner.

Effectively, he's allowed to have a banner sign up uh before and not improve fines until the date we specify.

Am I correct, counsel?

Okay, okay.

All right.

I might put in a motion.

Um other discussion on this one.

No, all right, rock and roll.

Okay, I'd like to put in a motion to extend uh the uh first the temporary sign.

What a minute.

I would have to what we're doing is number one, we're doing a first motion of violation, and then when we do our second motion, we will use that particular date that you want to use.

So we'll do a standard first motion.

Okay, I want a first motion.

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

May have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed motion carries.

May I have a second motion?

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

If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of is it 150 or 250?

150.

150 per day per violation for each day, each violation continues to exist if fines and fees remain unpaid for three months after such lien is filed.

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

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector.

Thank you, sir, for coming to speak with us.

Thank you so much for having me.

Thank you, sir.

Enjoy your pizza.

All right.

Agenda item 3.19 has been uh continued to August.

Agenda item 3.20, case 144-26.

Fine respondents Shane and Sarah Scott at 3136 San Pedro Street in violation of code for abandoned building and issue and order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Sir, would you come forward and give us your name?

An address in relation to the property.

Good day, sir.

Good afternoon.

My name is Shane Scott.

I own 3136 San Pedro Street.

Excellent.

Sir we're gonna we're gonna do do you uh admit or deny the violation?

I admit violation.

I'm sorry, Chair.

Were were you sworn in?

No, I was not here.

All right, so let's do that.

Yes, and then I'll ask you.

If you could just raise your hand.

Do you swear our firms tell the truth throughout your entire testimony?

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

Then I need to ask you again now that you're sworn in abroad.

Do you admit or deny the violation?

I admit the violation.

Excellent, sir.

We're gonna hear from the inspector, then we'll have you back up to talk with us.

Inspector.

That's the first time I've met him.

We've been talking on the phone for quite a while.

Kevin Maddox, code enforcement inspector for case number 144-26, uh, address of 3136 San Pedro Street.

One violation of abandoned building under 3-1503.

Uh notice of violation was sent and posted on 518 of this year.

Compliance date by 64 of this year.

I'll explain in the next uh uh in the next slide where that timeline comes through.

No uh green card was received, and the property was posted.

So of last year, September, a courtesy letter was sent.

Uh notice of violation was sent the first time on July of last year, and then from last year to the present many months of monitoring, uh financial setbacks, contractor issues were uh communicated, and then second notice of violation was created and posted on May of 26, and then uh as of today, no improvement or demolition of the property has occurred.

So this is the uh property as of um 710 of 2025.

There's no roof on it, and uh it's it's pretty much gutted on the inside.

Um this is where it was posted the second time uh because we didn't receive back a green card acknowledging on 518.

This is still the condition of of the property with no roof on it.

The if you look real close here, you can see it's just bare walls.

Um this is as of uh a couple days ago, it's still in the same condition.

Keeping it the yard in those pictures there was uh in the interim, there was things that were going on where contractors were starting uh projects in the back.

There was uh forms put up, there was concrete that was going to be put down, there was communication from the owner who was explaining what he was going through during this whole time, and finally it just came to a point where I had to bring in the code for it.

Um compliance can be met for this violation of abandoned building by bringing the property into compliance with current property maintenance maintenance ordinances and have current utilities turned on or demolish the building.

You're can we go back to that previous screen there?

I don't want to interrupt you, but it said you said and or net reads or and I want to make sure we're understanding what the what it is we're trying to meet.

Oh, I see ordinances and have or demolished, okay uh utilities term.

I got you, okay.

Thank you.

It's just part of the code for an abandoned building.

Right.

So we're requesting compliance on or before August 26 of 2026 or a fine of 150 dollars per day.

And I'm sure the owner will have some things to tell you.

Okay.

Since we uh thank you, do we have any questions of the inspector at the moment?

I do.

Okay.

Is there was there permits for this?

And if it's a second violation, couldn't you guys have gone in and taken it down or put come here to ask us to allow you to do that after a second violation?

I'm sorry, your first question?

Is there were there original permits?

Like I don't understand what happened.

Like was the roof taken off in a storm?

Is it a new build?

Is it like there were permits?

Uh as I recall, there was permits that had expired and and continued it, just continued to be an abandoned building.

So but it's a new build or it's an extension onto a house, or how did it like I don't understand?

Uh Mr.

Scott will tell us.

It's before we get too far off into exactly what's occurring.

Uh I'd like to go ahead and do the first violation and then let's gather data and figure out what we're gonna do on the second part of this, if that's okay.

All right.

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

I have a second.

So all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

All right, so um there's a question about whether or not it was uh just an existing building or there was something else going on with it.

So if I think the owner might be able to explain it better, sure.

I purchased the building on December 8th of 2023.

It is two blocks from my parents, and we were planning to expand the building.

It's originally 1185.

We've drawn it up to be 2493 in square footage, and so we were actually going to lift it as well, hence the reason we took off the roof.

Um the garage is still there, so our three walls, the slab would be extended, monolithic poor.

My dad's an architect, and so that's what we do, and um extending the home to be our permanent home and to be again two blocks from my parents.

So we were humming, and then in February of 2024, I um I lost my job, and uh we were rolling what we were doing, and we had just made a significant investment, about $50,000 liquid to get things in place to go.

I um after conversations with the contractor found out that he was not as honest as he portrayed himself to be.

And so I'm still out that 50 and have been looking to find someone to help source the rest of the info because of the state of the building.

I cannot get even a construction loan or two or three K loan.

So exploring hard money situations right now.

Uh we have three proposals out and are waiting for those to come back in, and the goal is to still complete the building, but as it is, it's not gotten to the point that I will probably have to sell it once I'm done constructing it because I will no longer be able to afford the payment.

We've moved from about 500,000 to about 700,000 to be in.

Uh the CMA shows that we'll be at around 930 for the community for the neighborhood homes are pending at 401 a square foot.

We'll be in for about 320 a square foot for our build, and so uh we're just trying to find funding.

Okay.

So with those details, thank you for providing them.

Sure.

You it's not feasible for you to get this into compliance within four.

I thought we can tear it down and uh it'll be a ground of construction.

That is what we're exploring right now.

Okay.

If you uh I'm sorry, were you through?

Yes, thank you.

If you pursue demolition, do you have a have you explored that enough to have a reasonable uh prediction of how long that would take?

Uh that can definitely be done by August 26th.

Okay.

That's a month, a little over a month from now, a month and four days.

Uh yes, whatever the date was that was provided before.

I believe it was August 26th.

Yeah, okay.

Um have you spoken with the building department about uh what's required in order to demolish the structure?

I have not spoken with them, gotten several quotes about demolishing.

Uh they said that they would get the permitting as part of the payment for demolishing the building because I believe gas has to be locked off, so there's water tagged in different locations, and then uh we would go down to slab.

That is a question I do have.

Uh what would be required when it says demolition?

Do we have to remove slab as well, or just down two slab?

That would be a question for the building department.

And you can talk with your code inspector, and he can either assist you with that or you can talk to the you know, perhaps talk to the building department directly in terms of what those requirements are.

Um the reason I ask that question is I question a um a 30 basically a 30 four-day timeline uh for compliance with demolition.

Um Inspector, do you have you care to offer anything on that?

If moving forward is going to be a demolition, I have no problem with following and monitoring it to conclusion as long as it's started right away.

Okay.

Are we proposing to extend the date or um I don't want to be in the position of testifying, but if somebody else wants to answer questions or even query the building department on what a reasonable amount of time would be for that, then I would be happy to entertain something that's realistic.

Your wish is your command.

Clear enough.

Hi, Kevin Gary with the building department again.

So a demo permit, what you uh need to do is uh contact the county air quality people and see what they're gonna want for asbestos.

They'll want to do an asbestos survey and see if there's anything that you need to do on the thing of the building.

Yeah, okay.

And then um do a cut and cap for your uh water and sewer, and then apply through our office for the demo permit, which is um basically if you got those two things done, the permits just issued.

So it's a quick turnaround time with those with those other things with the county done or county and the uh utilities.

Thanks.

Sure.

Uh I I have a question uh for you.

How long was how long approximately would that take?

Will be 30 days?

It just depends on when he processes.

The asbestos survey would probably take the longest because um he'll need to contact a well first contact the air quality people, and then if they say yeah, you need to do a uh survey, then you gotta get a company that go will go out and they'll do samples, they'll test the samples that'll take a couple of days turnaround time, and then they'll give a report back to um the owner, and then it gives that to the county, and then they'll determine if it's a wet demo or if there's nothing to worry about, or how they need to address the asbestos that may or may not be in the building.

Okay, so you know you got to allow probably a couple of weeks at least just for that.

I have a question for you whenever you're something else.

Um yeah, let me let me then go on to the cut and cap.

That would be hiring a plumber, and so when the plumber can get out to the property, um, you know, that's kind of up to the per plumber, whatever the schedule is, and then um that work can be done within a day, get an inspection the next business day, and that would be completed.

Okay, um, based on your experience, is 34 days a reasonable or a typical time for something like this to occur, or in your expectation do they typically take longer than that?

If everything went perfectly, you could do it in 34 days.

Thank you.

Yeah, okay.

All right, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Um based on the knowledge at hand, I would I would suggest uh uh you know we set this out like 60 days would seem fair.

Uh it's enough to motivate, move things along and bring the case along based on the I would also agree to that.

Thank you.

Great.

Because I'd be working out on the uh Clearwater Beach area.

Uh many of them struggle to continue to get this done uh in a that kind of a reasonable time, but uh and and then again I can also monitor this at that point to see where it is, as long as it started right away.

Yeah, I think I have a question from Mr.

Scott.

Yes, sir.

I I'm sorry to hear about your misfortune getting your home bill number one or only um I feel for you.

Do you think the 60 days would be enough if you're gonna have to pursue a teardown?

Yeah, that's interesting me because the close I got they said they could do it in a week, so yeah, but in a perfect.

If the other part is uh I didn't know about the asbestos, so that is one thing we'll do.

That's what I'm saying.

That can take time.

I will defer to the experts if they believe it can be done in 60.

We're ready to move on.

Yeah, so any other questions from the board?

All right, I believe we did a first declaration.

Can we do a second?

Uh that sets us 60 days out and 60 days out, and what would that date be, madam secretary?

That'll be September September 26th.

Okay, good.

All right.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before September 26 of 2026.

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

Each violation continues to exist.

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

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Quick question.

Once it's leveled, how do I stay out of compliance?

Okay.

That's your own.

There's your answer right there.

Right there, that's a lot, Mr.

Scott.

Thank you for coming to Mr.

Scott.

Appreciate it.

Good luck to you.

Nice go.

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

Moving on.

Agenda item 3.21 has been continued to August 26th.

Agenda 3.22, case 147-26.

Find respondents A5J's LLC at 2620 Drew.

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

Inspector Reese, you're back.

Good afternoon again.

Um and I'm going to interrupt you moment.

Is there anybody here to speak on this case?

All right, Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Okay, it was Inspector Catherine Reese with um clear order.

Case number is 147-26 for a 2620 Jew Street.

You have one violation here for permits required, section 4-203A1.

Specifically, a permanent sign installed on the structure.

Had multiple notice of violations.

First one began August 21st of 2025.

The last one was sent December 1st of 2025.

Multiple compliance dates were also given.

August 26th of 2025 and September 22nd of 2025.

This is going to be just east of US 19, north of Drew Street.

There.

What does the sign say?

The cut lounge.

I believe it's a barber shop that is there.

I have had communication with the property owner.

Um, the first time being September 24th of 2025, I explained to him that he thought it was already permitted.

That was a different business.

So I did let him know each time a sign comes down, even if it was the same sign, it would need to be repermitted again.

Um it needs to ensure that it's it's safe.

Um he did speak with his tenants way back at the temporary office on um state route 580.

They came in and the signs contractor that they used, they explained seems to be very confused.

Um he unfortunately I tried very hard to work with them because of the situation with that contractor, but I have gotten no compliance and no more communication on the matter.

So compliance can be met by obtaining an issue permit and completing said permit with inspections, or they can remove the sign as well.

So requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on before, excuse that date is August 2024, 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 dollars per day each day the violation continues to exist.

Any questions?

Board questions.

All right.

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 violation on or before August 22nd, 2026.

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

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

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector.

Item 3.23 on our agenda is continued to September.

Item 3.24 is continued to August.

Item 3.25, case 150-26.

Fine respondents.

Katina A.

Paduzie at 2054 Rainbow Drive in violation of code for permits.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

This man, would you come forward and give us your name?

Address in relation to the property, please.

My name is Katina Paduzzi.

I'm the owner.

Okay.

Thank you.

Do you uh do you admit or deny the violation?

Admit.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Um can I go ahead and get a first motion, please?

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

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Thank you.

We're gonna go in and hear from the inspector, and then we'll have you back up to give us more data.

All right.

Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Hello again, code board.

This is for 2054 Rainbow Drive.

I'm an Inspector Catherine Reese with the City of Clearwater.

Case number 150-26.

This is for one violation.

Permits required section 4-203A1, specifically for the installation of the wooden fence on the property.

We had multiple notice violations.

First one was October 14, 2025, the final one on February 27th of 2026.

Certified mail had been signed for all three notice violations.

This is just north of Rainbow Drive, I believe, and east of Mercury.

And this is the fence that was installed without a permit.

And that was the initial inspection photo October, October 14, 2025.

And this is as of today.

It is still there without a permit.

So the permit, they did come in and try to apply for the permit.

Um it is in revisions needed for multiple departments.

I really can't speak on that too much.

You know, but they need to come in to meet those revisions so that way they can get an issue permit.

That's the only way to come in compliance.

So compliance can be met by obtaining an issue permit and completing said permit with inspections or remove the fence and submit a void letter for the permit BCP 2025-100634.

Request some compliance by obtaining a permit on or before August 24, 2026, and completion of the permit six months from issuance of said permit.

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

Uh Inspector Reese, do you have do you have knowledge of when those revisions are to be expired?

Well, they won't ever expire those revisions.

Uh eventually the the permit will go stale and it will get voided out because it's not really an issue permit and it's not moving along.

So then we'd be back to square one with you know her still being in violation.

So it is in fact in violation today.

And how long would the permit go stale if it's not me move along?

It depends.

It's like something that people manually go ahead and and catch that it's not really going anywhere.

I'm not, I I don't know if the system automatically voids it after so long.

Okay.

When when was the uh permit application submitted?

Um it was applied for October 21st of 2025.

And as you can see, uh revisions have been needed since then.

There hasn't been any traction on any of those revisions.

Okay, so basically a permit was this uh permit um, you know, was this done before after the fence was installed?

Is this an after the fact or it is an after de fact?

Okay, so the offense was installed, and then they found that they needed a permit, so they applied for a permit, but it needs revisions, and nothing's occurred since the permit application in terms of the system or any changes or updates or amendments or anything else.

Not that I'm aware of, but the the revision I do believe I printed out the conditions.

I could put them it's very very small print, but it always is so there you can see engineering review, paying the fines, getting this the CO condition and plan planning review.

None of that has been met.

So that lets me know that nothing has really been submitted in the permit for it to move along any further.

So then this permit hasn't been issued and revisions needed fixed, right?

It's essentially just an applied permit with no movement, exactly.

So there is no permit, correct?

It's an application.

Yes.

Thank you.

So it um I see the second item paid fees.

Um I'm just taking note because I know how that process works, and if they submit and they haven't paid the initial fees, it's gonna sit there until those two.

So anyway, all right.

What don't does anybody else have questions for the uh no for the inspectoral cells here from 13.

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

Um well I usually don't take care of this.

My husband passed away recently, and so this is kind of dropped on my plate.

Um my son thought or I told him that the permitting was in place or you know, in process, so he thought that meant to go ahead and build the fence.

So that was the first miscommunication.

So then that's when I did the permitting or the application.

Um I do have a reference here and made that they received that information or the you know, the variances that need to be fixed on that, at least the application for that.

Um I have a reference number of Z01937.

Okay.

Um so I was waiting for that.

That's why this came to me as a surprise.

Um they had I was waiting for that to happen.

So there was an email mix up as well.

Um I emailed it from my hot mail in the original um in March to do the because we had extensions until March 2nd to do the variance request, but then I rarely ever fixed that and look at that email and I had on the application to email me back on the my Gmail account.

So I didn't check that until May, and then that's when I was definitely submitted back in the proper way was May 29th.

So they should have the information, and like I said, I have a reference number for this for the variances for the application.

So that's kind of I I assume we were in process and at work, and then I got this letter saying I had to you know come today.

Okay.

All right.

So your intentions are basically uh to figure out how to sort it out.

Absolutely.

Okay, absolutely, um, to get the variance that we need to have the fence where it's at and to continue with the fence if that's once I get the permit once it's approved.

What do you know about that in terms of the what what kind of variants are you looking for?

Is it is it outside the the property line or past the house, or what what kind of variance is um are you seeking?

There was so in the back of the house there was an add-on on the original house, and they're saying that that was the setback, but there's three or four houses in the neighborhood that are having the same fence and they have the same setback, so in order to house the boat, um it would have to come to the end of the property line, or not the property line, but the end of the house.

Okay.

We call that flexibility in the city, like just so that's what because we don't technically do variants in the city of clearance.

Correct, the flexibility of that word, yes.

But they has somebody indicated to you that flexibility is a possibility in this situation?

It's possible.

Okay.

It's possible.

Now we did have um what would make it go a little easier or smoother is if my adjacent neighbor would put up a fence at the same spot, and then we can go to that for you know to meet the coding zoning lines.

Right.

But um we were moving forward with that, but then there's we're not getting along as well now, the neighbor.

But like I said, I have pictures of different houses in that neighborhood that's have gotten their permits to do the same thing as I would like to do.

Has anyone mentioned to you whether getting flexibility for this would require going to the community development board or like what the process would be?

No, I was supposed to put it all together, show them at least what I was instructed to was put everything together, show pictures of you know this is in the neighborhood, and just ask for it at that point.

And like I said, they that whole packet was sent, and I have confirmation that it was in there for May 29th of this year.

Gotcha.

I was just trying to figure out how long it might take to kind of go through this process since we don't have anyone from planning here to kind of get us any guidance.

Right.

Because I am like the planning attorney as well.

Ah, okay.

But all right.

Sounds like there's some unknowns there.

So you have some things to do to you're not at a point.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you're not at a point where you clearly understand what you need to do to get in compliance or get this corrected.

Is that a fair statement or do you do you know?

No, I do not.

Okay.

I like I said, I was asked to put this the reasons why I needed it or requesting the not variance, but the flexibility.

Flexibility.

Um again, because it otherwise it would shorten the whole fence back up and it'd be like an it doesn't look right.

It doesn't lay out at all.

So you have the two houses, one here and one here.

Um if I put my fence way back here, how can you you know you're losing your I'm losing like three quarters of my property of a fence?

Um so the flexibility is to move it where the end of the house is would almost line up to the front of the next house behind me.

Okay, so that that way I can also put the boat back there and be compliant and you know that kind of thing.

So yeah, there's a lot, so it sounds like there's a lot more to do.

Okay.

Would you be able to be in contact with the building department to help sort these things out and understand what the the things need to be done on your permit?

What's what's required there?

Okay.

Do you think August would would be enough time for you to go through all this?

Um, but listening to everyone, I would probably not.

Um because it sounds like everyone's behind on permitting, so I would request another 60th on 90 days.

Inspector, what do you think?

Yes or no?

Yes, um, I I'm gonna give you my cards so you can stay in contact with me.

And um, I'm just I would suggest that we keep the date.

I have a discretion to not move forward with the affidavit if she is moving forward properly, and I have great communication with zoning that I can see the FLS is going in.

I do watch all the permits and all the flexibility applications that come in.

It's it's something I can just on my own hold off from bringing back with an affidavit of noncompliance if I see it's moving along, Mr.

Garrett.

Sorry.

Hello, Kevin Garriott.

I'll add a little bit that I know on that.

Um it's two separate processes to get your flexibility for what you're doing, it's probably 30 to 60 days, depending on when you get the application in.

If the application is complete, then it goes to the um the DRC and gets approved that way.

So I would allow 60 days for that, and then you can submit for your construction permit.

And for a fence permit, you're gonna probably take three to five days to get that turned around back to you.

Okay, so you're probably looking at two, three months to Kevin.

Do you think it's possible this might have to go to the community development board for approval, or you're not really able to weigh in on the because I know that certain flexibility requests have to go to the board, whether it's a level two or it's a level more.

Yeah, I don't know that I can answer that because I don't know what they're flexing on.

Because again, I think that comes back to time because if you got to get a CDB, then you gotta get scheduled for that it takes a little more time.

Not mine.

Oh that's not the one I wanted to show you.

So you're putting the fence in front of the house?

No, no.

I'm gonna right there.

Yes, I'm gonna step in and suggest that if there are things to look at that in terms of unless we're in in the process here of trying to figure out what a fair timeline would be in reviewing documents and stuff that maybe we look at what what is a fair amount of time to give here so that we can move forward and finish our agenda so that you know it works, it works in your benefit to try and get this thing done, but it's a fair and reasonable uh assessment.

Umless I have an objection from any of you on that.

Um I think the the goal here is to try and figure out what's what's best and fair that will help you get this done and but also give the city uh satisfy the city's concerns as well.

Um Inspector Reese, would you have an objection?

I don't want to speak out of turn for the board.

Would you have an objection of 60 days?

Uh no, I have no objection, and even from that point, even if it's not done, I again can have discretion to continue working with her if it's moving along.

The city just wants to see progression towards getting the permit.

Sure.

Okay.

I'll just go off.

I go along with Alex.

That's it, yes, 16 days.

Any other questions or input?

I just wanted to ask are you doing this as a homeowner builder, or do you have contract questions?

Okay, yes.

That's that could be daunting if it can.

So any other questions from the board.

Any objections to 60 days, then we'll that's what we'll motion.

We'll move.

All right.

May I have a second motion, please?

I moved in or an order requiring the respondents to correct the violations on or before September 24th, 2026.

If you just run it 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 on a three months after such lane is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lane.

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Ma'am, thank you for coming and speaking with us today and helping clarify this issue and good luck to you.

And our condolences on your host, yes.

Go on.

All right.

Um moving on agenda item 3.26 has been continued to September.

Item 3.27, case 152-26, prime respondents.

Ivan Caruso trustee 912 Seminole Street, Land Trust, and 912 Seminole Street in violation of the code for permits.

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

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Hello again, board.

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

This is at 912 Seminole Street, case number 152-26.

I believe we're stuck here from expanding, so I'll just move on for now.

Um we have one violation here for permits required.

This is going to be specifically for the permit on BCP 2015-11427, which was a new build on for a primary structure that was voided out.

The permit is required for the new primary structure that stands there today.

Oh, I think it's working.

So this isn't this started back in 2023.

Uh multiple notices have gone out through multiple inspectors.

Um my final one was sent out April 27th of 2026.

Multiple compliance dates.

This is my posting of hearing to the property on July 9th of 2026.

So this is going to be right on Seminole Street, uh, in between Vine and Pennsylvania Avenue.

So this is a Google photo that shows May of 2014.

It was a vacant lot.

And then the structure started being was being built April 2017.

That was another uh Google photo.

And this is February 2025.

So this was the permit that was for the uh owner at the time who got the permit, and it was voided out, and he did submit a void letter.

It was handwritten.

I didn't put it here for you all to see that he was no longer the uh owner of the property, and the new owner was going to take over for the new contract contractor of the build.

So the the contractor voided out his permit.

That letter was from the contractor.

Was it I believe it was from oh yes, it was from the contractor, correct?

Because he put his uh license number there.

Okay.

Um if I can clarify before you go further, you mentioned the owner pulled a permit, but then a contractor voided it out.

Was I would assume we're saying that he basically he hired a contractor who pulled a permit, and then at some point the owner's saying it's sold and the contractor pulled out.

Right.

But yet we have a building built anyway.

So what you're talking about a permit for new construction then?

That is correct.

Okay.

So at before the permit was voided out, a new contractor took over that permit.

It was transferred over to the new contractor.

Okay.

Which involved the new owner of the property.

Um that he didn't have the funds to basically move forward with that anymore.

So that is why it was voided out again.

The owner didn't or the contractor?

The contractor.

Okay.

Because ultimately the contractor is who owns that permit, so it needs to be done by the contractor, not the property owner.

But the violation stands with the property, as you all know.

Right.

But we have a structure build.

That is correct.

And that's why we're here today.

So my first questions would have to do with the timeline about when was the we have an initial permit that was applied for and was approved.

And then at some point the owner, the original contractor before he voided his permit, another contractor took it over.

So I'm assuming that uh timeline-wise, you you have a permit that's submitted, a permit that's approved.

Um at some point construction begins, the owner of the property sells the property, a new contractor takes the permit over, and the old contractor voids it.

One of the questions I have is where in this did construction start during this whole process.

Somewhere in between the 2017 photo and the well, the original permit was applied for uh let me see if I can go back to the permit in 2015, November 25th of 2015 is when it was applied for.

So it was some time ago, and then um years.

Yes.

So ultimately long long story short, the the per the property owner could not move forward with the finances to for with the contractor, which is not the city's concern.

The city's concern is who's going to pull this permit for this new build.

So that's where we're at today.

We have a new build that has no permit.

We don't know where inspections stand, and if this structure it holds the integrity, you know, to cope.

Do you are you able to tell under the original permit?

Was there any construction done?

Were there any inspections done?

I mean, what if what occurred?

Yes.

Um, there were multiple.

I did not, I'm I apologize.

I usually do put those screenshots in, but because it's avoided permit.

I I think that's why I left it out.

It is irrelevant at this point because they will have to start from scratch with a new with the new permit.

Um, I did here, however, include how many times the system did send that their permit was expiring, and you know, all of that.

It took the contractor, this letter of to void was sent September 6th of 2023, and that is when the the initial in um violation for the stop orcher got opened from the original inspector.

So it took them that long to submit that for it to become aware that this was still happening and that the structure is now up.

So at this time, we just need them to come in compliance by obtaining an after-the-fact permit for the primary structure with inspections.

So the fact that it was uh the property changed hands and the fact that work occurred somewhere during this time period, the fact that there was uh no approved permit and uh no approved inspections that were able to see it's basically that really the fact that the property was sold and the contractor left zone and so forth.

It still boils down to the basic fact that at the end of the day you have a property built without a valid permit and inspections, and that's what we're here to address.

Right, and then we're all all notice violations were sent to the property owner and property appraiser today who owns it today.

So they they are aware of the violation they took over the property knowing that this was still going to be permit, you know, needing a permit.

So have you spoken with the owner?

No.

Okay.

I'm assuming you sent them notices, but you've not heard anything.

I've sent notices, I've posted the property, I've attempted to knock, I've had no communication.

But yeah, a lot of missing data there, but yeah, but it not doesn't affect us much, I don't believe.

Does does anybody else have questions?

I do.

Is the house occupied?

I believe so.

There's vehicles that are always parked there.

I I just don't think anybody wants to talk with me.

So you're now welcome.

Well, the utilities are obviously it could be a 10, you know, attendant in there.

I I really would all be guesses at this point.

Can you tell how far it got into the approval of the previous I only ask because is it dangerous for people to be living in there?

It's not permitted.

So anything that's not permitted and and has not been inspected is potentially dangerous.

It's cost well, it's it's potential hazards too.

Yes, you know.

Um other questions.

This ought to be an easy one.

Can I get a first motion?

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

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 October uh sorry, set August.

August.

August 24th of 2026.

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

Each violation continues to exist.

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

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, Inspector Reese.

Thank you.

Item 3.8 on our agenda has been withdrawn.

3.28 has been withdrawn.

Moving on to old business items.

We have a uh request by a petitioner.

Um case 70-23.

Consider request by petitioners.

I have a Elayon at 1383 Gulf de Bay Boulevard.

To reduce the fine regarding graffiti, and if approved, issue an order that specifies a fine that includes administration costs and established debate payable.

The lien will revert to its original amount.

I know we have a uh written request submitted to us, but I don't see by anybody here to speak on this one.

Or address it.

And I see that we also have uh our original minutes.

Um speaking from the the chair's position, my concern about this one is that it's um there's very little um data here.

This is a large amount, and I'm not exactly sure how I would approach a reduction on this, but I am welcome to uh I welcome any uh comments or questions or whatever from the board.

I I wish this guy had come today.

Yeah, that were so forward.

I have been in contact.

The the property owner is not able to be here, he's elderly.

Um his realtor was desperately trying to help him through this process, and she got him to fill out the application and and she submitted it to me.

Um I just wanted you to be aware that he wasn't able to be here.

Do you do you is I just don't know, it's like the graffiti gone now?

Yep, I can give a little more information on the status of the building.

Um the violation was for a different graffiti on boarded up windows.

The graffiti has been cleaned since uh 2025.

Um the property is in compliance with the violation that was cited that these liens have been accruing for.

Um there are potentially some other issues at the building that have nothing to do with this violation of the lien reduction.

However, it looks like from his reduction paperwork, it looks like there's a sale pending.

So, in the you know, getting a new owner in who potentially would take over the building and fix those issues that we would not oppose and be supportive of a lien reduction.

Okay, and we have seen cases in the past too where an owner will or potential owner or buyer will come to the city and discuss these items and come up with the stipulated agreement.

Um without without any other input other than the limited data we have here.

Um I wouldn't know where else to go with this.

Uh I can touch a little bit on that too with the stipulated agreement is that there currently are no other violations cited.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

Sorry, for the stipulated agreement.

There currently are no other violations cited in the system when this came out.

Um this lien reduction request came in.

We went out and looked at the property and said there are theoretically some other violations at the property, however, there are not currently any cases open, so there's nothing to stipulate at this point.

Right.

I don't oppose with reducing the lien.

Is this a residence or it's a I could I have pictures if you'd like to see, but it's a strip mall on Gulf De Bay.

Yeah, I looked it up.

It's kind of on the isn't it on kind of just it's just past where Gulf de Bay takes off of Cleveland Street.

There are some strip centers as you kind of go up the hill toward the big bend up there at Highland.

Um this is like an older strip center of two to four storefronts.

Yeah, and uh the um map quest or for Google maps shows you can look on the building and you see their old photo that has the plywood and the graffiti on it for whatever that's worth, and if that's been corrected now, then so be it.

But uh Mr.

Salzman, do you have the uh administrative costs?

Yes, the total administrative costs are one thousand fifty-three dollars and twenty cents.

Thank you.

Now that having been one thousand fifty-three and twenty cents.

That having been said, uh the owner has requested a lien reduction of fifteen hundred dollars.

So uh we can't override that.

Say it again, I said we can determine just that the buyer is.

Uh no, we're not aware of anything beyond the reduction paperwork that they've submitted.

So you it bothers me that you know these I don't want this to be a formula where developers or or people that flip houses come in knowing that they're gonna get this thing taken away, and and yet they're still getting the the property for something less than market value.

I understand.

So I you know we don't have much information here.

Like we've seen somewhere there have been trustees that have been flipping it between family members.

I think they're shaking loose the responsibility here.

Well they didn't take any action when they could have.

They waited until they flipped the house, and then they get this lien reduction.

Well, it's not a policy.

That's not part of the conversation that I think we were going to have.

True, but later on.

Um the facts, the facts is that the property is in compliance.

There's no further issues other than what she mentioned, and why not?

Why wouldn't we just allow them to say the city saying it's okay?

You brought up, I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt anybody.

We're there's several viewpoints being thrown in here, which I appreciate the end, but I've got I want to go back to your point about uh in terms of a formula for reducing these things.

I think one of the things is he's not he did not wait until uh this.

I I see from this that you know the guy says he the pen between the pandemic and being homeless and no employment, I can understand how those issues might affect uh a building owner.

Uh I'm not in favor of a formula either that would automatically reduce fines every time we have something come before us or waiting until a building is sold to handle it.

Um I I think that the fact that it's it's been brought that those issues have been dealt with, and as far as the graffiti is concerned, it is in compliance.

Uh good for the building owner.

At least he took, you know, at some point in time took that responsibility.

Um I think that uh you know that's an important fact.

I think that um that um apparently the fines went on for some period of time to get to a point of 75,900.

Um it's also in terms of reducing fines for a new owner, that's the incentive for a new owner to come in.

And we've seen several cases over the last you know few years where uh any either investors, flippers, whatever you want to call them, new homeowners or whatever, have come in and acquired a property, and part of the incentive for them to do that is they know they can handle that, and they come in and they fully handle the property, and now it's it's off the books, it's in compliance, it stays in compliance because you have a new and different owners.

And I think uh on the opposite side of a formula that reduces a formula that would hold uh high liens in place would inhibit and stop sale of properties, it would be put a hardship on an owner on a new owner that didn't create it if they're even willing to buy it after the fact.

One of the advantages that comes from reducing these when there is a sale on it, would be that the new owner knows that okay, he didn't number one, he didn't create it, so he's not the one that let it sit for that long, but he is the guy that comes in and cleans it up and makes it a uh corrects the problem back to where it's in compliance, it's no longer an ISOR, and it's now no longer on code enforcement or a continued thing because it is a new owner.

So I think that's the the upside of it.

So I understand both arguments.

I think that uh if there is in fact this green uh a sale on the property or sale pending or something like that.

Um from my experience here on the board, it seems there's two ways to approach it.

Number one is to just impose the lien and let a new buyer uh do some sort of a stipulated agreement with the city or reduce the fine now for the amount requested or less uh in terms of administrative fees, reduce it that uh help facilitate the sale.

Uh my only concern about that is that not having a representative here and and no data regarding an actual sale.

If that is not the case, then we're simply letting the existing owner off the hook with no real penalty other than uh whatever you know.

If we reduce it, then I mean why don't we just make the agreement contingent on the sale then just put some sort of stipulation in the agreement?

Well, I don't understand why he's done he corrected it, it's done.

There's nothing exactly fixed what needed to be fixed.

Whether he I don't know if it's a if he's got a realtor, he's probably got something going on there.

Well, I'd like to say that it was brought to our attention that it was the realtor that filled out the application and handled this, and the sale is listed two days from now.

Oh, is it yeah, right here?

The sale will happen on the the 24th Friday.

So this is a buyer purchasing the property.

First space right there.

Oh, I get you.

Yeah, okay.

So pending on the property.

Yeah.

Anderson.

Anderson, sorry.

All right.

Anyway, I think we can just put it in motion.

Yeah, exactly.

Do this.

Get this done.

All right.

So the only question that if that's the case and there's no objection from the board, then the only question remaining is he's requested a lien reduction down to 1500.

And the administrative fees are less than that.

Um any discussion or input from the board about what that number should be.

Just leave it at the 1500 as requested.

Or I'd go to the 1053 and carry it one way or the other.

We've always usually gone to the actual cost.

Say again.

We've usually always go into the actual cost.

Yeah, those people don't know what they are anyway.

Yeah.

Okay.

Ready?

All right.

If if there's no objection to the administrative fees of $1,053 and 20 cents, then I'll go, and there's no further discussion.

I'll entertain a motion.

I move to enter an order reducing the amount of the lien to administrative costs of $1,053.20 cents within 30 days where the lien will revert to its original amount.

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

No.

Motion carries.

Is there a nay?

Yes.

Okay.

Thanks, sir.

All right.

On to other board action.

We have affidavits of compliance, which we typically all do within one motion.

And so regarding case 87 17, 86-19, 40-22, 71-25, 93-25, 4-26, 83-26, 100-26, and 159-26.

May I have a motion?

83.

Skip 83.

83 26 included in those.

May I have a motion to accept the affidavits of compliance is listed.

I'm going to accept the affidavit of compliance as listed.

May I have a second?

Second.

Sorry.

Second.

I'm sorry.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

5.2 on our agenda has been continued to August 26th.

All right.

On case um for a second.

5.3.

Yeah, I was just making sure I noticed something in an earlier listing.

I just want to make sure I didn't miss it.

Moving on to agenda item 5.3, case 79-26.

Accept the affidavit of non-compliance for respondents Alexander Gabrichek and Sniz Hana Gabrich at 1623 Windsor Place for permits.

Council, I believe, and we've based on history, we've decided we don't necessarily need a presentation.

It's simply an affidavit of non-compliance.

We could spend time reviewing it, but why exactly?

All right.

I mean, the the point is they haven't come in compliance.

The inspector has given you an affidavit saying they're not in compliance.

Correct.

So all you need to do to start your order for fines is to accept the affidavits of noncompliance.

So unless somebody is here to say there's something that is wrong with what the inspector has brought forward.

Just accept the affidavits of non-compliance.

Well, we're running along here.

I see no reason to do that unless you know somebody has an objection, then we'll I'll ask for a motion on case 7926 to accept the affidavit of non-compliance.

I move to accept affidavit of non-compliance as listed.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

No, that's the wrong.

Sorry, I got it.

It's right here.

Uh we'll cancel that motion and request a uh new motion.

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

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

May I have a second session?

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 5.4 on our agenda has been continued to August.

Item 5.5, case 88-26.

Accept the affidavits and non-compliance for respondents.

Alexander Gabrichek and Schnezana Gabrichek at 1623.

Windsor place for permits, room addition.

Um as before, unless there's some objection, we'll move forward with a uh motion for accepting the affidavit of non-compliance.

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

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

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

And Chair, I'm sorry.

Before you go on, the item 5.6.

We will do that after the um nuisance abatements cases.

Okay.

Okay.

So we move it down our agenda.

Yes.

Okay.

Um right.

Moving on to the nuisance nuisance abatement lien filings.

On the item agenda 6.1 has been withdrawn.

Um Madam Chairman has requested that item 6.2 be withdrawn as well.

Uh item 6.3, case 180-26.

Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents.

Eliana Santos Torres and Geodeni Vilus B Lima at 1215 Elders Street for an operative vehicle and issue an order with a compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violence, the violation if compliance is not met.

After New Game Board, Inspector Dixon with the City of Clearwater.

This is case 180-26 for 1215 Eldridge Street.

One violation at the property for inoperable vehicles.

There's also a car in the front yard without a tag, so I posted notice on the vehicles that I could get to that were by the street.

As of this morning, the vehicle, the car still has no tag, and the uh dump truck doesn't have a tag, the van's been moved over to the driveway, so I couldn't verify that if there's still two vehicles without tags on the property.

So compliance can be met by removing the vehicles from the property or make repairs so the vehicles roadworthy as well as display a current license plate is assigned to the vehicle, and we're requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order.

This is just a wow, guess.

Greg, but would you say these would those vehicles in that truck drop truck?

We got someone starting a used car lot here.

A private use.

That are a construction business.

Yeah, not sure.

Yeah.

Okay.

The dump truck couldn't be there regardless if it had a good tag, but well, I was still looking at those two cars lined up there, you know, and no tags on that.

The way they're part by each other.

Yeah, I'm not sure.

They reached out to me.

Okay.

Questions from the board?

Um ready for a motion.

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 the charge respondent with a reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property.

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

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

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you, Inspector.

Item 6.4 on the agenda, case 181-26.

Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Joe Daniels at 1265 Palmetto Street for inoperative vehicle and issue an order with compliance deadline.

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

Inspector Dixon.

There's two vehicles at the property that have expired tags on them.

And as of today, the vehicles are still there.

They still have expired tags.

Requesting compliance five days after the board renders this order.

I did speak to the owner of the house that he doesn't know he knows who the book vehicles belong to, but he can't get a hold of them and he wants them gone.

But I told him I have to go through the process.

Their funeral.

Yeah.

All right.

Any questions from the board?

No.

May I have a motion, please?

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

If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry into 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 foreclose collect or settle such lien.

All in favor, all opposed motion carries.

Thank you, Graham.

Thank you, sir.

Agenda item 6.5 case 182-26.

Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Benjamin Hernandez at 1771 Townsend Street for public health safety or welfare nuisance.

Pool and issue an order of the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met.

This one I'm also going to be asking for a declaration of violation.

The owner did end up cleaning the pool, and it is now in an acceptable state today.

Okay.

All right.

Any questions from the board before we all right?

I'm ready for a declaration of violation.

I'm able 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 impose a daily fine and order the city to take all this reasonable action to abate and maintain the nuisance, including entry into the property and charge the respondent with those costs, fines, and fees, which will become a lien on the property.

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Kasman.

6.6 on our agenda.

Case 183-26.

Accept the nuisance abatement.

Lien for respondent.

Sir Sergey Durham and Julianne Murchak at 769 Harbor Island for lot clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation.

If compliance is not met.

Inspector Maddox.

Kevin Maddox, code compliance inspector for the city of Clearwater.

Case number 183-26 for 769 Harbor Island.

Nuisance abatement.

One violation of 1503 B7, B8, B5A for lot clearing overgrowth, overgrowth right away, and accumulation of debris and trash.

Notice of violation was sent.

Compliance date by July 6th.

This on the 26th, posted.

This is more pictures of long grass and weeds on a demolished lot out on this area.

714 again the grass is just a little bit longer.

The bushes are a little bit taller.

And today, the bushes were again a little bit taller.

Compliance can be met for lot clearing by cutting all grass and vegetation, including the curb line, removing all trash and debris, and continue to keep it clean.

Requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order.

Thank you, sir.

Questions from the board.

May I have a motion, please?

Anybody?

I move to enter.

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

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

If cost, fines, and fees remain unpaid for 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.

Moving on to agenda item 6.7, case 184-26.

Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents.

IW Management LLC at 946 Lantana Avenue for lot clearing and issue an order with a compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met.

Inspector Maddox.

Kevin Maddox code compliance inspector city of Clearwater.

Case number 184-26 for 946 Lantana Avenue.

This is nuisance abatement.

One violation of code Section 1503B7, B8, B5A for overgrowth, right-of-way, overgrowth, and accumulation of debris and trash.

Notice of violation was sent and posted on 617 compliance date by 629.

The green card was received, signed.

Here it was posted.

The grass is fairly deep, even though the picture does not portray that.

Later I have a 12-inch cone that shows it's over that height.

On 714, the cone here is buried, but yet the grass doesn't look too bad.

But when you compare it to the neighbor's yard, you can see the height is starting to creep up.

On today's date, the height was just a little taller.

Compliance can be met for lot clearing by cutting all grass, including the curved line sidewalking, continuing to maintain it, removing all trash and debris, continuing to keep it clean, and re uh we are requesting compliance five days after the board renders this order.

Thank you, sir.

Questions from the board.

I'm ready for a motion.

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

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

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

The city is authorized to foreclose, collect, resettle such lien.

All righty, thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Agenda item 6.8, case 185-26.

Accept the nuisance abatement lane for respondents.

Thomas C.

Little estate at 1322 South Pilcrest Avenue for light clearing and issue an order with a compliance deadline and authorized authorize the city to mitigate the violation of compliance is not.

Inspector Jensen, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, board.

Dave Jensen, code inspector with the city of Clearwater.

This is uh 1322 Hill Crest, uh, case number 185-26.

It's gonna be one violation for 31503 B5A.

Okay.

Three 31503 B5A for accumulation of junk and debris.

This was actually called in by a neighbor that's right next door.

Um part of her issues, she's trying to sell the house, and she's uh indicated she's having some issues because of what's going on next door.

Uh notice of violation was sent and posted as well as being posted to City Hall.

Uh there's the posting.

This property has been an issue for the last couple of years.

Apparently, uh the owner's deceased, it's part of an estate that's being handled by an attorney's office.

I have spoken with the attorney's office.

They're trying to get uh cooperation from whomever is at the property, and uh, it's not really clear who is occupying the property right now.

Um the attorney's office told me that they're getting the run around.

One party saying it's the other party's fault with who would be among the people that are in the house.

So, as you can see on the first date one out, there is a mattress and some other junk present on site.

This whole line of garbage is on the uh one side of the garage.

This is the backyard.

This was a small homeless style encampment that had been erected.

Uh, this is taken from the neighbor's yard.

She provided with some more pictures.

Uh, this is there's a very deep gully right there.

I'm not really sure how she came in to get pictures, but the whole backyard was just full of uh junk and debris, bike parts, broken down pieces, and things like that.

This is uh the other day the data compliance.

This pile of garbage is out the road.

We don't allow garbage to be put out to the street until the night before pickup.

This was on Monday, their pickup in that area is on Friday, so this is still just considered junk and debris that's on the property.

Uh the pile is still there today.

I actually put a tag on the proper or on the junk, letting them know they needed to get it back from the curb line.

It was still there this morning when I was out there, and you can see I take the trailer because it's in violation of a different ordinance that we're not worried about today.

Um, this was the side of the garage on the data compliance.

The large pile of garbage is gone.

However, there's still just a bunch of junk present there.

And uh same thing out, another view of the garbage out front.

That was out back.

They did take the uh encampment style thing down.

However, this stuff showed up, fence pieces.

This pile of garbage over here that wasn't there before is now showing up on the data compliance.

So nothing's really getting removed from the property.

Things are just apparently getting shuffled around.

Um this is from this morning.

Nothing's been moved away from the curb.

This is a side house where all the garbage is at.

There's some different garbage out there now, a bag of what looks like household waste.

Nothing's really changed out back.

Um just looks like the pile has been covered up with a tarp.

Yeah, while it was present, this subject and another subject there female were screaming profanity as I could be heard from the roadway.

So this place is suffering as a major nuisance to the neighborhood.

Um again, the attorney's office is speaking with them trying to get some cooperation, and it doesn't sound like it's happening.

So unfortunately, that's why we're here.

Uh compliance, we met for accumulation of junk and debris, by removing all the junk and debris, trash, anything else from the property, and I'm asking for compliance five days after the board renders its order.

Ironic if they have all that junk and garbage, but yet there's a recycle bet out there.

All right, questions from the board.

May I have a motion, please?

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

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

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

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

May I have a second?

Seconds.

All in favor?

All opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you, Inspector.

Appreciate it.

And last but not least, open that.

Item 6.9, case 187-26.

Accept the nuisance abatement link for respondents bridge SFR IBC borrower LLC at 514 North Duncan Avenue for lot clearing.

And issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation of compliance is not met.

Inspector Kasman.

All right.

Good afternoon, board.

Daniel Kasman, code enforcement inspector for the city of Clear Owner.

This is for case number 187-26 for 514 North Duncan Avenue.

It's a nuisance abatement.

One violation here for code section 3-1503 B8, B7, B5A for lot clearing.

Went out with the compliance date.

Here's a close up of the notice.

And here's the property.

It was overgrown.

It came as a complaint from the neighbors.

It's kind of an uneven lawn due to the shape from the tree out front.

I went back after compliance date.

Mostly had been cut, but there were a few sections you can see there, they just kind of ignored in the middle of the yard.

And another portion of it was I asked them to please edge the curb and get the lawn from growing out into the street.

Again, on that little, if you can see this little area, see if it's probably must.

This area here, the property line actually goes a little bit further than the fence when you're looking at for property appraiser.

This area over here, they kind of just didn't want to mow, and then this section up front just weren't mowing.

And then a little bit on the side of the house there.

I'm not really concerned too much about the ferns underneath the tree.

That's okay.

I'm talking more so about the lawn itself.

This is the gun on the 10th as well.

This was this morning.

The grass has grown overall the entire property, but in those same sections, still hasn't really been addressed.

That's gotten even longer.

That wasn't satisfactory.

And there's still more edging that has to happen out front as well.

So compliance met for lock clearing by mowing the lawn both back in the front, removing any debris and edging the curb.

Very good.

Questions from the board.

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 with the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable costs, which will become a lien on the property.

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

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

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Dan.

Before we adjourn, we have item 5.6 on our agenda.

Discuss nuisance abatement and lien reduction process.

Now I'm not exactly sure what this entails, but I'm sure somebody's going to tell us.

Well, I think there was some confusion at the last meeting regarding this, and there was actually a discussion in when we talk about the nuisance abatement.

Normally nuisance abatement cases are exactly what you heard, which is there's a nuisance.

The city apparently has a, and you had one of the cases today where you actually found somebody that has corrected it prior, but they still wanted your normal kind of code case.

And that is because I guess here in Clearwater, it's unique in that their nuisance, general nuisance cases all come under the nuisance abatement.

That's not what you normally see.

What you normally see is what I said earlier, which is you're abating a nuisance, you're coming in, you're clearing it up.

Um so that's one of the things that we want to make sure that you all understand why those are under nuisance abatement as opposed to general cases that you hear.

Which I would also point out uh for me for the future, I think we could definitely move that up to the new business because uh the abandoned building also falls under the nuisance uh ordinances, and that does go under the new business like the other the community CDC cases, so like your exterior surface property maintenance.

Those usually the ones you're hearing that we're requesting fines, uh like Andy said.

Um normally when we're doing a nuisance, we're seeking ability to come onto the property.

However, there are some cases where we don't have the ability to basically like the one we heard this afternoon was for a green pool.

Um the city doesn't have the contractor or ability currently to go on and fix someone's pool on their property.

So in something like that, we'd be seeking fines like we would for other types of ordinances.

So in a future uh agenda, we would make sure that goes up on the beginning, like new business.

That way you know you're still reading the normal, you have a compliance date or a fine.

So that way we don't get confused.

No, anything anytime you throw something that's a little out of the ordinary.

I think we we sometimes struggle to know which script parts to read.

Um that's also something that Nicole and I are working on, or I'm working on, and Nicole forwarded me the paperwork.

Appreciate it.

Um we're looking at overall, like the scripts, the how we run the meetings.

I think it hasn't been looked at in a relatively long time.

So I'm kind of looking at what we're currently doing as far as process, what's changed, what should be changed.

Uh so I'm currently looking at all the scripts, what can be changed, what needs to come before the board for can be changed.

So I'm kind of looking at our process, the scripts and our rules of order, and basically looking at potentially modernizing some things.

And I believe what I would probably do is do a first draft and then have another kind of post-meeting discussion like this, where we kind of go over it, see if the board is an input on it if like you agree, do you disagree, what would you like to see updated and changed, and that we were kind of all on the same page and moving forward in a positive direction with the board.

So what we're looking at is basically two things.

Number one, uh changing the agenda somewhat, and I presume that if we if we're changing the order of the agenda and moving this, no?

No, no.

What we would be doing is taking those cases like you heard today, that's not a traditional nuisance abatement and moving it up as separate from this because I got it.

These should all be the same.

They should be you're you're making a determination to allow somebody to come on to the property.

All right.

But that'll that'll be reflect if you move something to a different area, it's gonna be reflected in the agenda.

Right.

And then the other part of that would be if you're changing the verbiage or the wording of motions and stuff.

You're gonna bring it up.

Well, we yeah, we would go over those with you.

Um those are always a work in progress.

So we haven't changed those in in a long time.

However, we would make sure that you're comfortable with whatever the language is that we're putting in there.

And and chair, like you said, uh um going back, you know, one of the changes is going back to accepting um the affidavits of noncompliance.

Um, because basically, and you had another case about that earlier.

The whole idea is you give a date.

This is the date to come in compliance.

There's several different ways, obviously, to come in compliance, knock down a house potentially, um, you know, correct whatever the issue is.

Once we're at the stage where they haven't come in compliance, it's just an affidavit.

Now the city doesn't have to submit that affidavit immediately because they might be working with the individual.

So that's one of the things you all talked about, too.

Are do we need to give it uh additional time?

Are they gonna be working with them?

Well, normally what you see, at least in my experience um dealing with the city, has been they'll work with them unless someone is you know not communicating with them, um, and they won't bring you the affidavit of non-compliance until they have to.

Remember, the intention of this board, as you read it, is to have compliance.

We're not here for necessarily for fines.

We're here to get compliance.

And so that's the first level.

It's just when people don't want to do anything, that the only power you have is to issue a fine or do a uh um a nuisance abatement.

So those are really that's all you have, um, and that's all the city can really go after these people.

Uh so that that's why you see some of these cases that way.

All right.

And let me lead into the lien reduction, which actually I think you all did it today in exactly the correct way.

You discussed what information you needed.

Did you have sufficient information?

These are case-by-case basis.

You cannot sit there and say, okay, we're automatically going to reduce it 50%, or we're not going to reduce at all in these particular cases.

Because each one turns on it on a different fact, but I think that the discussion you all had was perfect because the other part about it is the city and you all, as as residents city are looking to have these properties cleaned up, right?

And so the only way we really get that normally is if they sell the property.

And so we're looking for people to buy the property.

Um, obviously, if there is a such a high lien, they're not going to, and we're going to just have a continual eye solar.

So the intention here is to try to get somebody new in that's going to put in money into those properties.

Um, whether it is a developer or whether it's a strip center, you know, owner that's putting in new businesses.

All you're really looking at in those cases are trying to get somebody that's going to come in and clean it up.

There are the occasions where we have fines that are different, um, and they sit there for a different reason.

You've had those, but the norm is what you saw today.

Those are the ones you're going to normally see.

And they're vetted by the city before they come here.

So the city's looking at these and going, okay, we're dealing with these people, they're trying to buy the property.

A lot of times we see it where the sale is only a couple days away.

Um, and so it's kind of quickly, but we try to accommodate those people because we want to see those properties rehabbed.

I mean, that's the goal here.

Um, but there are the occasions where the fines are appropriate.

I think you see those more in the short-term rental cases, where people are just not, you know, they're not doing it and they're they're willing to accept, okay.

Well, it's just the cost of doing business, right?

Um, and so those are a little different, but each one has to be taken on its own uh case by case facts.

What I thought today might have been lacking was that we didn't have a representative because it's good to have a representative to answer your questions to give you that comfort as to what really is going on.

Um, in fact, Nicole and I were talking about that briefly when that case came up is maybe you guys would continue it if it wasn't that there was a sale pending so closely uh in those cases that we have a representative because I think that brings you more understanding and more information that you can determine as to whether or not these are appropriate.

So we'll look into making sure that happens.

The majority, I would say almost all of them, we always have a representative, so it's a little odd not to have somebody, but based on the circumstances that we glean that it makes sense why the guy couldn't be here or have a representative.

And even if he can't be here, like we got we had that one lady who lived in somewhere else, not in the state, she sent a letter.

Right.

You know, that's also helpful to us, even if the realtor is the one who writes it.

But normally you do see a letter or a person.

Uh just it's odd not to have.

Yeah.

Should the realtor bet here, Mr.

Salisbury?

If they have the ability to represent, um I I think though you give you guys figured it out pretty quickly.

I mean, the sales in two two days, they need it.

The reduction is, I mean, this is not one, this was graffiti, right?

So those circumstances are are not one where you have a constant problem with the property.

Um so that's a unique one.

We don't know.

I'm trying to think the last time we had one with graffiti.

I can't even tell you.

Uh and I can't imagine any of us would approve a lien reduction on any property that isn't RE come into compliance.

Otherwise, why would we give a lien reduction of the property?

It wouldn't even come to you.

We would not bring it before you uh a rare circumstance might be the city will bring something to you on an agreed um you know deal.

Yeah, uh, but we don't bring them before you unless they're in compliance.

So Nicole, for these types of cases, we don't do those agreements anymore at all anymore, right?

This is just the board.

We remember how you see those stipulated agreements.

We don't have to do it.

We still do it.

We're still doing them, yeah.

Yeah, we did what we're doing.

We have not had one in quite some time.

Like, do we do it for every lien reduction or when would we what would be the circumstance for doing one now?

A stipulated agreement would be for if they still had open violations.

That makes sense.

Open violations where they're the person who's gonna buy it is gonna correct those within a right.

That makes sense, right?

Okay.

I had one um a couple of years ago.

I was selling a duplex to investors, and there had been a fire.

And the fines had accumulated and accumulated, but my guys were given you know, administrative costs as long as they did all the repairs within so many days.

And those agreements still go to the board for approval.

Okay.

I mean, again, those are circumstances where we're trying to get compliance around, trying to get somebody to clean it up.

That's right.

Because we don't want ISOs, and we don't want you know, on this one that we were looking at where the neighbor is trying to sell their property, they can't because this person has all those things.

So that's the intent of these.

Um but I think you have you just cannot come up with a blanket formula because you have to look at the circumstances of each case.

So and if there's something, and today was one, where you need to we need to make sure you have something, which is to have a representative or letter, we will make sure that that is there.

Um and if there's something else that comes up that you want to see, we're happy to bring that to you.

Excellent.

One last thing I have before we adjourn is that uh one of the things that you mentioned in looking everything over is uh is potential procedural changes.

And now that the chair has just gotten comfortable with running a meeting without a cheat sheet, if we're gonna make any changes, I would like to see kind of uh something in writing so I can wrap my head around it.

Yeah, we would absolutely bring it to the step on my tongue for that meeting.

I would appreciate that.

After I do a first draft, my plan will be to bring it to the board, have another like side meeting like this, kind of go through the changes.

I'm not necessarily looking to make sweeping grand changes.

I'm more looking to basically codify what we're already doing that isn't quite written down, like the af like the applicants of non-compliance, like if there's no owner here, except like you can't accept the afflicted class if there is an owner, then so like but basically codifying and having that written out so that there's no confusion.

So if we had a a brand new board tomorrow, they'd know what we've been doing and wrong.

Streamlining and making sure everything we're actually currently doing is written down for for the future generations.

I would make a suggestion of putting like a glossary, like what is an affidavit?

What is it?

You know, you know, just little it can be very quick.

I would also be interested in doing a training with the board.

Uh, once we kind of get this sort of through kind of going through how does co-compliance work?

How does our process work?

Because a lot of times we say acronyms and we say what we're doing and we assume that everyone knows because it's what we do every day.

We assume that everyone knows what we're talking about, but um, but that sh shouldn't be an assumption.

So I would like to do a training with everyone too, especially as we go through this uh drafting process.

Okay.

And miscellaneous motions.

Like, I was just gonna say, you know, I miscellaneously put in a motion to reduce whatever that's fine, but there's a few miscellaneous ones that aren't raised.

Make some boilerplate ones either.

Yeah.

There's a few of them we've had to make up on the fly.

Okay, I hope this this works.

And there is nothing wrong with you coming up with one that says something along the lines of, well, we just want to continue this one for 60 days.

Yeah, we don't want any other action taken.

You can do that.

So there, you know, I mean it's it's all up to you.

But potentially writing down some draft ones that we have done, some audio in the past, maybe some examples.

Some examples.

Yeah, with like a little this you do this when this happens, you do this when this happens, or that's the same.

Well, the other advantage you have, I'm sorry, Chair.

We either have one or two things that happens here.

Either we have a new members, significant new members on a board, or we have new inspectors.

You have very experienced inspectors, yeah.

So that is an advantage to your cases being seen.

We don't have the problems we've had in the past, so that that's a good sign.

Okay.

Anything else before we adjourn?

One going once, going twice.

We are adjourned.

Thank you, board.