I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please be seated. Agendas of today's meeting are on the wall of the entrance to the chambers. Please turn off your cell phone. The Municipal Code of Enforcement Board consists of seven members who are appointed by the city council, and we serve voluntarily. It is this board's intention to promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Clearwater by providing this equitable, effective, and inexpensive method of enforcing certain codes within the city. The board considers new business items in two parts, first a violation and then affirmative relief. Former rules of evidence do not apply. Each site is limited to 15 minutes. The board may grant additional time. All proceedings will be conducted in a calm, silver manner, and their droves to conduct themselves otherwise will be asked to leave. If necessary, they will be escorted from the chambers. Now, I ask all who plan to speak, please rise and be sworn in by the clerk. Do you wish to speak on a—are you guys speaking on the case? Their item is anticipated to be continued, but they were here nonetheless. We're working on a resolution. Got it. Thank you. Sorry. Do you swear or affirm or tell the truth throughout your entire test mark? I do. Thank you. Our first order of our business is to review and approve the minutes of last month's meeting. May I have a motion to approve the minutes? I move to approve last month's minutes. Second. Second. Minutes are approved. Go to page three. We need to have a vote. Oh, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Minutes are approved. Go to page three. Is there anyone here to speak to this case? That's after you call the first case. Okay. That's why I'm missing that. Okay. All right. The first case is on the agenda 3.3, continued from November the 19th, Case 147-25. The respondents, Clemente, Teron, Petra, May, and San Diego, Teron, at 2371 Chaucer Street, in violation of code for exterior storage and issue an order with a compliance deadline and find if compliance is not met. Is anyone here to speak to this case? It wasn't a second. I don't see my PowerPoint up here. Do you see it here? No, it's not. No, it's me. No. Yeah, but it's on one sheet here. Inspector, you have the floor. Good afternoon. Kevin Maddox, code enforcement inspector for City of Clearwater. This case is 147-25 for 2371 Chaucer Street. We met at the last MCEB board meeting, and the gentleman had a language issue, which – Kevin, he's here. He's here? Okay. Yeah. So this was a continuation from the last meeting. A quick, do you want him to consult and board? I've got City Clerk Rosemary Call here to provide interpretation for the respondent. Okay. And we need to swear a minute. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. If you could raise your hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth throughout your entire testimony? Yes. Okay. Is that a – do you want – Entiendes, okay? Yes, yes, yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. De nada. You're welcome. And your name? My name is Clemente. D-E-Z-H-A. Mr. Clemente, do you admit or deny the violation? He admits. Okay. Would you have a seat, and we'll call you right back up soon. Okay. Inspector. This case is for one violation of Code Section 3-1502G1 exterior storage. Notice of violation was sent on July 10th. Compliance date on August 11th with certified mail was received signed on July 22nd of this year. This is the house. The front of the house, when I first noticed it, was developing a large amount of items on the outside of the house. You could see through the lawn and to the back of the vehicles, it was starting to stack up. On August 11th, I had looked at it again, and at this point, the garage door is now open and stacked very high, and things were continually coming outside of the house and being worked on over the months. Over here, stacked on the left side of the house and in the garage area and in the front. On the 19th of November, it had significantly improved, which was our last code board meeting, but there were still some items on the side of the house, items that were stacked in the front, and some items on the other side of the house that still needed to be removed. As of today, it's in that same condition where there's still the storage containers out in the front of the house. There's some minor things up by the garage on this side. Let's see if I can back up. The pipes were on the other side as well that still need to be removed. Compliance can be met by clearing all any discarded or unused materials, interior furnishings, appliances, automobiles, supplies, equipment, construction materials, junk, garbage, containers from the exterior of the property, and maintain it on a regular basis. The requesting compliance on or before January 14th, 2026, for Case 147-25. And the fine? I'm sorry. $150? I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Okay. Or a fine of $150 per day for violation, for each day the violation exists. Thank you very much. Any questions for the inspector? Yes. Have you been in communication with the owner, Mr. Troy? I've attempted to stop by several different times. I did see one woman, and there was always a language barrier, and she indicated that it's getting cleaned. But over the months, it significantly got better in this last month or so, but it just needs a little bit more. Thank you. Mr. Clemente? Okay. Okay. So he has a video of what he's done around the property. All right. Hang on. Just a moment. I need to have a motion made first for the violation. Do I have a motion? I move to find a respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. All in favor. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Clemente, go right ahead. Go ahead. It's okay. Video? So it's a video of his property of today. He says that he's cleaned up all around the property. I put a new fence, too. So. New fence? I put a new fence out on the house. Okay. Is this a repeat, or is this? I think so. Yes, that's a repeat. I take it twice. I take twice. It's a loop. It's a loop. Does the board have any questions? That's up today, taken up today. Yes. I have a question for the inspector. Yes, I do, too. Mr. Maddox, Inspector Maddox, when was the last time you saw the property? I inspected the property this morning about 9 or 10 o'clock. Okay. The video appears to not have an angle to see the pipes that are along the left side of the house, so I could not tell if that got removed between that time and just now. Right. It seems to appear, but I can't quite see the stacked boxes up by the front door and some miscellaneous things by the garage door. They're not significant. It's just that if the boxes and the pipes were removed on the left side of the house facing forward, that would be, in my book, compliance. I would tend to agree. I'll just offer the observation that the video, I mean, it's good that there's a video, but I was not able to see the level of detail. Yeah. And it would, based on our experience on the board, it would seem prudent to have the owner get with you and satisfy your concerns. Yes, and he, the same cat was right there by the truck. I could see that, so it had to have been within the same hour. It's the opening of the house. The next opening of the cat. Back in an observation, yes, sir. It's all within the same period of time. Thank you. So, Mr. Clemente, do you have anything else you would like to add? Board, do I have any other questions? Well, have you removed, has you removed the pipes or not? No. No, no, no. Yes. You know, it would seem, if I can offer, it seems to me that per our typical procedure, you know, we've already found him in violation. If we make the mortar, go with the inspector's request to have compliance before January 14th. Now that he's here with an interpreter and the inspector's here, they ought to easily be able to coordinate that and deal with that. So, it would seem to me, you know, if we offer our standard motion, then we're done. Mr. Clemente, just stay in touch with the inspector, okay? I'm going to read the second motion so that he doesn't comply. Yes. So, we'll do the same. Yeah. Okay. Do you want it? I'll do it. Okay. Okay, go ahead. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on it before January 14th, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day. Per violation for each day, each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carried. Thank you, Mr. Clemente. Good. The next case is on the docket is case number 167-25, respondent John Limham at 1659 Long Street in violation for code for steer, surfaces, and roof maintenance. And issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Daniel Kasman, Inspector. Go right ahead, Daniel. I'm happy to inform you all. He did come to compliance, so I'm just requesting a declaration of violation for this case for both issues. Do I have a motion for declaration? Is this a typical or is this a... Complied prior. After, I'm sorry? Complied prior. Okay. I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist. Second. May I have a motion on declaration? Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carried. Thank you very much. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you. Next case. On the docket is case number 168-25, respondent Street Dreams Trust by Cheryl Trueblood, Trey, at 1400 North Martin Luther King Drive, in violation of code for steerer surfaces in abandoned buildings, and issue an order with a compliance deadline if compliance is not met. Greg? I don't think so. Anyone here to speak on this issue? No, obviously not. Go right ahead, Inspector. All right. Good afternoon, Board. Inspector Dixon, City of Clearwater. This is for 1400 North Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, case 168-25. There's two violations of code section 3-1502B for exterior surfaces, and code section 3-1503A, B1, 2, 3, and 9 for abandoned building. This case started at the end of July. There was, the mail was returned back, so I had to post the property in August. It's a commercial building along MLK. It's got some rotted wood, needs some attention. The grass wasn't being cut. There were some broke down cars on the property. This is a copy of the utilities. There hasn't been water at the place since 2017. That's about the same time the last business tax receipt was active there. Here is the property on day of posting. The grass is cut, and the vehicles were removed, but the building's in the same condition. I haven't spoke with the owner. Here's a posting of the notice of hearing for today, and here's the property this morning still in the same condition. Inspector, he has contacted you and all? No. The mail goes to this building. They're not getting it, so if they're not going by it, they're not getting my postings or anything. Okay. Do you have any contact information for the owner? No. Okay. Compliance can be met for the exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structural or decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, and faded peeling paint. Compliance can be met for the abandoned building by correcting all code violations. Visit the property regularly to ensure the grounds are kept neat and no other violations occur on the property. I would like to request compliance on it before January 14, 2026, or a fine of $150 per day per violation if compliance is not met. Are there any questions for the inspector? Nope. May I have a motion on the violation? I move to fine the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carried. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before January 14, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion carried. Next case is continued January. Case number 170.25, final respondents JEMB, Pondico LLC at 100 Carnaval Drive in violation of code for prohibited signage and issuing an order with the compliance deadline if compliance is not met. Mr. Burkhart. Good afternoon, board. Stephen Burkhart, sign inspector for City of Clearwater. All five cases today presented by me are declarations of violations. That means that case and following cases, they are in compliance as of today. I'm just asking the board for declaration of violation. Okay. May I have a motion on the declaration? I move to fine the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day. The violation continues to exist. All in favor? Second. Second. Any questions? Okay. All right. Second. All in favor? All in favor. Aye. All right. Motion carried. Okay. You're on the next one, too. Okay. Case number 171.25, final respondents. D.C. Colorado Beach, one property, LFC, 309 Coronado Drive, in violation of code for prohibited signage and issue an order with a compliance deadline if compliance is not met. Inspector. All right. Stephen Burkhardt, sign inspector. I'm asking for declaration of violation for this case. May I have a motion on the declaration? I move to fine the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist. All in favor? Second. Yes. All in favor? Aye. All right. Motion carried. Thank you. I keep forgetting about that part. So, with your help. Thank you. Keep struggling. I need it, too, boy. Next case is 173.25. Respondent's Palmer, Charles E. Jr. 310. Did I miss it? 3.10? Yeah, 310. One right above it. Right above. I'm reading to it. 310. I'm reading 311. 310. 172.25. Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah. I'll skip down one. Okay. Case number 172.25. Final response is Beach Eats Enterprises. What's her name? LFC at 395 Mendenley Avenue in violation of code for prohibited signage and issuing order with a compliance deadline and fine if the compliance is not met. Anyone here to speak on that case? No. Okay. Inspector, you have the floor. All right. Stephen Burkhardt. The case is in compliance as of today, and I'm asking for declaration of violation. Please. May I have a motion on the declaration? I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code. As referred to in the affidavit in this case, the violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day. The violation continues to exist. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carried. This case, I'll make sure I'm on the right case. 312, 311, case number 173.25. The respondents, Palmer, Charles E. Jr., Trey Palmer, Charles E. Jr., Rev. Trust, Joseph Pallara, Vivian Pallara, Peter Pallara, and Melissa Arnett at 431 Mentally Avenue in violation for prohibited signage and issuing an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Anyone here to speak on that case? Obviously not. Mr. Burkhart, you have the floor. Stephen Burkhart. The case 173-25 was in violation and as of today is in compliance, so I'm asking the board for declaration of violation. And may I have a motion on the declaration? I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case, the violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day. The violation continues to exist. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion carried. Next case will be case number 174.25, respondents at Pelican Walk Plaza LLC at 483 Mandalay Avenue in violation of code for prohibited signage and issuing an order with a compliance deadline and finally if compliance is not met. Mr. Burkhart, again, you have the floor. Stephen Burkhart. Sure. The case 174-25 is in compliance as of today, so I'm asking the board for declaration of violation. And may I have a motion on the declaration? I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist. Any second? Second. Aye. All in favor? Aye. Motion carried. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Burkhart. Next case is continued to January, okay, and we are going down to, let's continue, case number 181.25. Oh, sorry, my mistake. Yeah, let's continue. Wow. Yeah, I see what you said. Yeah, we're skipping way down to 181.25. You're right. The fine respondent is Andrew Smokler at 2901, Brigadoon Drive, in violation of code for exterior surfaces and clean roof. An issue in order with a compliance deadline and fine. And fine. The fine respondent is Andrew Smokler at 2901, Brigadoon Drive, in violation of code for exterior surfaces and clean roof. All right, next case up on the docket is 3.19, case number 181.25, fine respondent is Andrew Smokler at 2901, Brigadoon Drive, in violation of code for exterior surfaces and clean roof. An issue in order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this? Can we come forward, sir? He's not sworn in. Was he sworn in? He's not sworn in. Yes, he was sworn in. Were you sworn in, sir? I don't believe so. He was just sitting there. Yeah, he was sworn in. I don't believe Greg, here's your name. He's where a firm to tell the truth. I don't understand that. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Smokler. Do you admit or deny the violation? Admit. Admit it? Okay, will you have a seat right there? Can I have a first motion, please? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Good afternoon, board. Jared Daniels, Sr., code inspector. This is about address 2901, Brigadoon Drive. It's one violation for code section 3-1502.B for exterior surfaces. The notice of violation was sent out on 4-15-25 with a compliance date of 5-21-25, and the certified mail was received signed on 4-29-25. This is on the day of the first initial inspection, just a top mold and mildew, whatever. This was after the compliance date, saying it's still in the same state, and this was this morning, still in the same state. Compliance can be met for exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structure and decorative elements of any building walls and ensure all external surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose materials, and fading, slash pill and paint. Requesting compliance owner before February 1st, 2026, or a fine of $150 per day per violation if compliance is not met. Board, do we have any questions, Inspector? Have you been in conversation with the owner? I spoke with him on site before, and he ensured me that he was working on it. It was some more things to the unit that were fixed, but this was just the only thing that's left to be done. What else did you see there that has been fixed? That has been fixed? Yeah. Oh, they painted, he pressure washed the whole unit. It was more mold and mildew on the rest of the unit that he did clear up, and he ensured me that it was, he couldn't reach it with the pressure washer, so he was supposed to be getting, going further to try to get up there and get that all cleaned up. Got you. Good. Thank you. Mr. Snookler? How's the progress going on this property? I'm making progress. Originally, there was also, like, debris on the roof. I had the HOA trim more of the tree line because mine is an end unit, and it has a ton of tree branches that get old, whatever, dried out, and they fall on the roof. They fall on the front of me when I come out of my home, which is unsafe for me. But they did do that. They did fix that. It was also damage to my posts, which I caulkered. Is that the right word? Caulkered and repainted. I also had a handyman come over and do some siding on the back between the two AC units and painted the closest paint that we could. I've had pressure washer on the side of that mildew that you just saw. It removed most of it, but unfortunately, due to the Florida heat and whatever, it has grown back. I've been also pressure washing it quite often. I tried to get on the roof myself, but unfortunately, my ladders aren't big enough. I don't have any family or associates that I can get larger ladders to. But I will remedy that with either a professional company or buy just a new ladder myself because the companies that I have asked to help me, they won't even speak with me without getting money up front, which I think is a little bit ridiculous. But I have every intention of fixing it by whatever date it costs. Even though it's in the back and it's not being seen by anyone, it's still part of my responsibility. It's part of my home. I want my home to be a good reflection of the community. Very good. Sounds like you're taking care of a lot of stuff. I'm trying. February 1st is going to be plenty of time for you to get the rest of everything in compliance. Yes. Board, do you have any questions for Mr. Smallberg? No? No. All right. Can I have a second motion? Thank you, sir. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before February 1st, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. Motion carries. Next case is 3.21 on our agenda. Case number 183-25. Five respondents, Elizabeth Anderson, at 200 Leeward Islands, in violation of code for unsafe building and an issue of order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this? Yes. Yes. Yes. Have you been sworn in, ma'am? No. No. We'll get you sworn in real quick and then we'll get to it. I think you'll just raise your right hand. Do you swear to promise to all the truth throughout your entire test? State her hand. Ms. Anderson, will you come up to the podium, please? Will you state your name? I've got a couple questions to ask you. Elizabeth Anderson. Can you state your name and address for our clerk? Okay. It's Elizabeth Anderson, 200 Leeward Island. Ms. Anderson, do you admit or deny the violation today? Admit to the violation. Do you admit to it? Okay. If you want to have a seat right there, we'll have the city present her case and then I'll get right back to you. Sit where? Can you move that rope for her so she don't have to go all the way around? Thank you. Ms. Anderson? Just two. Ms. Anderson? Ms. Anderson, you can just go right through there, hon. You can just turn around and go right through there so you don't have to walk all the way around. You don't have to walk. We've spent a lot of time together. All right. Inspector Larson, we have the floor. Thank you. My name is James Larson, building inspector. This is case number 183-25, 200 Leeward Island. Section, we have one violation, section 3-1502, property maintenance requirements, minimum building code requirements. All buildings shall be maintained in accordance with the Florida Building Code, Fire Prevention Code, International Maintenance Code. Section 3-1503, nuisances, the existence of any of the following specific buildings which are abandoned, boarded up for a period of six months, partially destroyed, left in a period of three months, a state of partial construction, provided any unfinished building or structure which has been under construction six months or more shall be deemed and presumed to have been left for an unreasonably long period of time. Notice of violation, 10-16-2024, so it's over a year, 27 days after receipt of notice as a compliance date. Certified mail was returned signed on October 25th, 2024. The property was posted October 16th, 2025. Notice of hearing posted, 10-16-25, notice of hearing. Here you'll see, here's the location. It's at 200 Leeward. These are pictures of the structure. The building was on fire after the hurricane, flooding. Fire during the hurricane? Yes, sir. There's her car in the garage. And this is what it looked like yesterday. She did have it cleaned up real well, as you can see, but it's still in violation as it stands. For compliance to be met, have a licensed contractor obtain and complete required permitting to elevate the structure according to design flood elevation or for compliance to complete demolition of the structure. Obtain and complete the permit by March 18th, 2026. We're asking the board to authorize the City of Clearwater to enter onto the property to correct the violations by any means necessary and any reasonable cost to be applied as liens against the property. After three months from the recording date of such a lien, if the fines and fees remain unpaid, the City Attorney's Office is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien using any legal or equitable remedies under state law. That's pretty much where we stand. Now, when the city says, by any and all means, does that mean even demolition of the property, of the structure? Yes, sir. Okay. Well, how do you determine that as far as? Well, the situations, because of the flood and the hurricane, the FEMA rules apply. I know they have to be elevated. Yes, sir. So there's no fixing this one way or the other? It's my opinion that, no, there's short of, I mean, I've seen in the past where they will leave some of this up and then build on top of it, but as the way it stands now. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear Bob's opinion, too. Go ahead. Based on my experience with the FEMA rules, if a property is damaged in excess of 50% of its actual value at the time of a storm, and repair costs exceed that 50% value, then the entire structure has to be brought up to code, including elevating the structure if it's below the base, what they call the base flood elevation. And so based on what I see here and knowing the location of it, there's, when you have a slab residence, there's no feasible way to lift that slab. It's the economical route is that typically the property would get demolished in a new structure built that is at an elevation that complies with the FEMA rules. So what that means in our world is that the only feasible economical route on this thing is that it would get demolished. It comes down. Thank you. Board, do you have any other questions for your inspector? Is there a recommended fine? Sorry. Is this a, this isn't a nuisance, is it? No, it would be a lane. Well, it's unsafe building. So what would, yeah, what would be the daily? Mr. Chair, I mean, this, they, we have cited to the nuisance code provisions, but we have not brought it through the expedited nuisance abatement procedures. This is, as you can see from the timeline, this is something that we've been extending multiple times trying to work with the property owner. And I'll just add that, you know, with regard to the FEMA rules and that sort of thing, when someone applies for a permit to repair something that's been damaged by a storm, that the floodplain administrator for the city will make a determination on the 50% rule, whether or not the repair would exceed that 50% rule, as the board member was explaining. When that comes at the time that they apply for the permit? When they apply for the permit. And so there could be a substantial damage determination or a substantial repair determination made through that permitting process. That decision is then appealable up to the community development board if the person disagrees with that decision. I'm not familiar with the specific details for this. I don't know if the building department wants to chime in on that. But, you know, they do have the building official, the floodplain administrator, I should say, can make that determination of substantial damage. Essentially, what we're asking for here is just the authorization to go and demolish it if it's not done within a certain time. The other thing I would add to that is that I'm not sure if the property owner can explain whether or not the property is homesteaded or not. The city cannot foreclose on a homesteaded property. So I'll just make that clear. We would never even attempt to do so. So it's expressly prohibited for a lien in this type of situation, you know, for demolition. We would go through a procurement process. We would get quotes from demolition contractors and engage that if this was all authorized. And then the work would be done, the liens that would go against the property. I know in talking with the clerk, in other cases, we have worked out payment plans and things over time. That's something that we would be open to. We understand the hardship of this situation. So I just want to make all that clear on the record before we move on. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. Ms. Anderson, can you come back up, please? Are you okay? Do you need some water or something? Take your time. Take your time. I take my time. I'm going to drop in. Don't do that. We're very sorry for your loss, by the way. Yes, we are. We all understand. It's devastating. I have a lawsuit, you know. Do you plan on pulling permits to try to get this? I would love to have my house back at the amount of making Christmas cookies. No, I don't know. I'm planning, but I call. I had one builder, constructor, and I looked on Zoom or whatever it is, and they said he was unreputable. So I have to be very careful. Is your homeowner's insurance helping you? My homeowner? Your insurance. I had no insurance. My mother died, and I took care of her, and just a year before, I stopped the insurance because they wanted $2,000 a month because of the water and the water pump. So I stopped the insurance. So as of right now, you're basically the only thing that, you know. Is the lawyer in that Hyunda case because the car, during the hurricane, I opened the garage tour, and the whole house blew up, and the neighbors mad because the pool was a mess. That was my fault. But he should have been worried the house could have blown him up and his house, too. Thank God it didn't blow anybody neighbor on either side, you know, as long as it was mine. That was the only luck I had. Where are you living now, Ms. Anderson? Last night, yesterday, I was going in a motel, but my dog knows how to press the electric button, and she doesn't want any dogs, and he's going in the motel ahead of me. She said, get out in Orange Blossom. She was Polish. Yeah, I know that motel. He knows how to press the button in the back of it. But sometimes I'd stay in the car. Sometimes I used to go to Femur Fairfield Hotel. It was lovely, but, you know, it was only for duration. Ms. Anderson, do you have any plans in place or any idea how you're going to deal with the property or what you're going to do? Well, I had Kevin, a demolisher, because the city wanted $25,000 to demolish it. He said he could do it for $6,000 in the pool. So I'm calling a lot of people. I didn't know anything. For six months, Hyundai said they were going to give me money because the car was on a safety recall. And I took it to Fitzgerald, and they told me it was fun that I could take it, put it anywhere in the car, anywhere. And the fire inspector said the brakes, they didn't replace the brakes ejected, and that's why it blew up. Do you own the property? My mother gave me two. Okay, good. Oh, that's good. Well, in the end, it will be. Yeah, I mean. Well, it's just part of life, Ms. Anderson. We understand. We're okay. Everything's all right. I'm crying. So you're in the process of talking with demolition, trying to find demolition? Yeah, and sometimes I ask contractors because a lot of contractors said they could fix the – because my neighbor said there's four walls. You can do something. But the city, you know, they say this. Now they've got to have a pillar, and they have cast iron pipes, and I can't – you know how it's old. Yeah, yeah. So they've really tightened their grip down there on the islands, you know, because of – I've been there 57 years. It was different codes now. Yeah. Yeah. You know, so do you think that you're – they've got a March 18th deadline on this. I mean, do you think that by March 18th you're going to possibly be able to get out? Oh, you don't call anymore. He's a – Yeah. I keep calling. I keep – get somebody out there to maybe, you know, look at it, you know, make a decision one way there. Because what we're going to do today is just go ahead with – go ahead with our procedure, and you'll have until the March of the 26th, or 6th, 18th. So I can cry all through Christmas in that burned-out house. You can all come for a Christmas party. We can – You can come Christmas at my house if you want to. But we're just going – we're going to go ahead and go through our order, and then you'll have until March the 18th. It's okay. It's – it's – it's okay. You know, stuff happens to the best of us, son, and you had no – you had no control over this. Yeah, but I did have control in the beginning. I thought this last night. I should have sold that right away. But I – you know, I think my mother died and been here for so long. Well, you can still sell the property after – after it comes back into compliance. That's why I say in the end, you owning it, it's going to help you. It's going to help you really well. I mean, I know – What can I do, Bill? If High Ender doesn't give me any money, I'll live in there in a tent. The land. The land's worth – the land's worth a bit, you know, down there on the island. Just that land with no buildings, it's a flat piece of dirt. It's worth a lot of money. That's going to be in your favor. And that's going to be in your favor, yeah. If I make it, if I make it. You will. I will. Completely. You're going to be fine. You're going to come out of this, and you're going to be just fine. I'm sorry. No, that's okay. It's all right. So, yeah, like I said, we're going to go ahead and go through our orders, and then, you know, you'll have until March the 18th. You know, keep calling some people. Maybe get some builders out there and see, you know, just get some ideas, you know, before you make the decision to set, okay? I just got new glasses, so I don't – I feel like a drunk, you know. I can see it's all so good. I'm actually uglier than I really look, so your new glasses are probably healthy. I know they're cold bottles, so cheap. Okay. All right. Well, thank you, Ms. Anderson. We know you're overwhelmed, but don't let it consume you, okay? Happy holidays, guys. You too, Ms. Anderson. Can I get a – I got a first motion on this, right? We did get a first motion. I don't think we did. I don't think so. No, we didn't get a first motion. No, there is a first motion on this. Is this a nuisance abatement? No, it's a regular nuisance. No, it's not a nuisance abatement. Yeah, not yet. It's not an unsafe bill, because that's what the – I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the appendated in this case. I'll second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? First motion carries. I'm going to get a second motion approved. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before March 18, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of – is it 150? No, there was no. We were not asking for this. Is this the right motion? I think he was asking for the – Shouldn't we be using the unsafe building motion? Oh. So would the abatement motion be appropriate? Yeah. I didn't ask for the abatement. Is that what you want? We ask for – I mean, essentially, it's the same remedy that we are requesting. The city is requesting, if the deadline is not met, that the city be authorized to enter the property and correct the violation. All right. So that would be under the unsafe building, but in that language is the word foreclosed, and we've rendered an opinion. Well, you can't – I mean, you can say it, but it doesn't matter because they can't. So you can put the – I mean, if it suddenly isn't homesteaded, then they could. All right. So we just read the order as written? Yeah. So – right. And that would be the – It's just a question of what the city is able to do. Skip the fine. That would be the – Just let it play out. Right. We're not seeking any kind of fine. We're just – Okay. Like I said, we would – if the deadline was not met, then we would discuss as a city staff what the next step would be, and we would hire a contractor through our procurement, and we would go demolish the building pursuant to the board's authorization. Okay. With regard to the homestead issue, we would never foreclose on the homestead property. But as the attorney said, if the property changed ownership and lost its homestead status, then we would at that time – that could be a potential means to collect whatever expenses the city incurred. Okay. I thought this was a zero in the – Well, I won't even read that. I'll just skip it. No. It wasn't a nuisance abatement. Right. We're on an unsafe building. Unsafe building. All right. All right. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before March 18, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property, to bring the property into compliance and charge the respondent with all costs, which will become a lien on the property. If cost, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to propose, collect, or settle such liens. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Second. Motion carries. All right. Next. Good luck, Ms. Anderson. You too, dear. Thank you. Can I ask her? Ms. Anderson? Are you available to stay until the end of the meeting? Our next case is going to be 3-22 on our agenda case, 184-25, find respondents William R. Black at 2390 Willow Street Trail in violation of code for unsafe building and issue in order for compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? No? Well, I can go ahead with our first motion. It's there. Oh, okay. Hold on. Let's wait a second. Is, I'm sorry, are we on 3.22? 3.22, yes. Stand up. It's time before I get it. Everything was running smooth until I walked in. Pretty much. Pretty much. Thank you. Item 3.22 will be continued to January. Okay. Sorry about that. Case number 184-225 will be continued until our January meeting. Okay, 3.23 on our agenda has been withdrawn. Case 3.24 on the agenda. Case number 186-25, find respondents level 13 asset management LLC at 534 South Keystone Avenue in violation of code for permits and issue in order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Inspector Reese, do you have a floor? Good afternoon, code board. I'm Inspector Catherine Reese, also known as Cat Reese. Might as well put that on record now. For case number 186-25, this is for one violation for permits required, Section 4-203.a.1. Specifically, this is for an installation of new posts on the deck and the railing replacement. First notice was sent April 10, 2025, and my final notice was sent May 19, 2025, with a compliance date on the original compliance date of May 19, 2025. I posted to the property on December 5, this year, for the hearing. This is just to give you an idea of where the location is. So it would be south of Crest Lake Park, just east of Lake Direct. And this is a picture of the physical posting for the hearing. And this started as I started on a housing case for this property. So I can testify that deck was not like that during my housing inspection. I've had no communication with the property owners ever. They just went about to try to fix, I guess, what they could. But, again, on my housing, it did state that they required permits for such work. And that was my picture as of today. Compliance could be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit, requesting compliance on or before January 19, 2026, to obtain an issued permit, and six months from issuance date to complete said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. And you had no communication at all? None at all. I've seen a car there. So is someone living there? Yeah? Do you think? It's tenants. Oh, tenants. I've talked to tenants on the property, but never the property owners. Kat, when was your compliance date? The original was May 19th. So it's been a while. Right. No, not the original. January 16th? January 16th? Oh, January. Yes. I picked the, yeah, so January 16th. Okay. I'm missing. No, January, since January 19th. 19th, yes, because I went to the next business, open business day. Gotcha. Thank you. From a month from today, but not counting the weekend. Any questions? Yes. So there's no permit of any, record of any kind for the deck work that was built? No, sir. Okay. And no communication from the owner whatsoever? No. Okay. Did they sign for the certified mail? Do you know? No, that is why I posted on the property. I also posted my notices on the property as well. Gotcha. No communication whatsoever then. Okay. All right. Thank you. Have you looked on the property records to see where the owners are at? Are they around here? It's an LLC. Oh, so, yeah. And I believe their address is in Ocala, if I'm not mistaken, just off memory, writing so many notices. No LLCs ever live here. No. They own properties. Board, do you have any other questions for your inspector? No. Can I have a first motion? Mr. Chairman, I move to find a respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? First motion carries. Can I give a second? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations only before January the 19th, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by the date, the board will 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 a loan is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such a loan. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Second motion carries. All right. Next case on our agenda is 3.25. Case number 187-25. Founders, respondents, Vicki Lynn Bishop at 1028 Iroquois Street in violation of code for permits and issued an order with a compliance deadline and a fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? No? Inspector Reese, you have the floor. All right. Inspector Cat Reese, this is in reference to 1028 Iroquois Street, case number 187-25. And this also will be for one violation, section 4-203.a.1 for permits required. No person shall commence any construction, demolition, modification, or renovation of a building or structure without first obtaining a building permit, specifically for the installation of the pool. This is an old case that I have taken over from a previous inspector. So the beginning, their first notice of violation was sent September 28th of 2020, with my final notice that was sent June 3rd of 2025. Their original compliance date was October 13th of 2020. And I did have to post to the hearing for the notice of hearing on December 5th. This is located on Iroquois Street, which is just east of Fort Harrison, and just south of Calumet Street, more common street. That is a picture of the property and my posting on December 5th. This is a Google Earth image of said pool, and just a street view from January 10th of 2019, and then another, I'm sorry, aerial view of February 23rd of 2025. I have had contact with Ms. Bishop. However, given the time that, you know, how long this has been going on and reading through the notes from the previous inspector, saying that you're going to get something done, and it's been quite some time, I did extend her twice. She does have a contractor who put in for the pool permit. However, he has not met the conditions on it. And I did make it clear to the contractor, without the permit being issued prior to Code Board, I would still have to continue on with the case, so that way we can ensure that we get an issued permit and have final inspections on this pool. So that's why we're here today. These are the conditions that need to be met. So the contractor, the narrative that they put into the permit does not match what the permit technicians are seeing in, you know, for the permit. So they need to fix that as well. And then they'll be able to get an issued permit. So compliance can be met by obtaining and completing a permit or removing the pool. Request compliance on or before January 19th to obtain an issued permit and six months from issued date to complete said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day. Each day the violation continues to exist. And just to add, Ms. Bishop is aware that if the contractor didn't get this done, that I would be presenting it at Code Board. I'm surprised she's not here. So this is five years. It's a very long time. To pull a permit? Yes. That sounds very real. That's unreasonable. I mean, that's like, well, did it, did it, I'm curious as to why the gap, just not for any particular reason, but for understanding. It's a great question. I really, I can't speak on previous inspectors. I know for me going forward, I want to stick to a reasonable timeline so we don't have very old cases like this coming before the board without a reasonable explanation as to why. I assure you that won't happen on my area. Nobody's holding you responsible for when. Right. I know. I just wish I had the answers for you for that, but I don't. When was the original permit? In 2020. I don't think we've ever heard one that long. Are you allowed to, like, permits go for five years? Oh, no. So the permit has, that was, sorry, let me go back for you so that way you could, I know what you mean now. That might have been just a violation. There was no permit. So the permit itself was applied for on December 11th. Of this year? Yes. So, four days ago. So I'm confident, even with us, me presenting it here, that the contractor advised me, I'll have it done before code board so you can get it withdrawn, but here we are. So I just can't take people's word for it, especially when it comes to a permit and a pool, you know, we need to ensure final inspections because it was a stock work order. But even so, the violation's been there five years. Yes. And there is no statute of limitations. Mr. Chair, we, there is an Attorney General's opinion that recognizes that there is no specific statute of limitations applicable to code ordinance, city ordinance violations. And then given the fact that an unpermitted construction is an ongoing thing, you're going to see, as Ms. Reese has taken over some cases that kind of got stale over just staffing issues, I suppose, that you will see some of these as she's picking up the banner for them. But we've looked at them. We've talked through it. And it's our position that the statute of limitations does not apply for these types of violations. Each and every day, you've heard that phrase, each and every day the violation exists is often treated as a new violation itself. So, we are talking through some of this, trying to figure out the best way. With permits that have been applied and were not properly closed out or expired and then properties are sold to bona fide purchasers with those issues, the building code statute lays out a process that allows the building department to close out some of those expired permits. But that's only if, you know, there was kind of a permit in process from a previous owner and then you've got an arm's length buyer who kind of bought into something that they didn't know they were getting. That's kind of a different situation from completely unpermitted work altogether. I hope that answers some of your questions. But the board will likely see some more of these in the current days and we're happy to talk through some of that with you. And the city's not asking, like, retroactive back to whatever date that was. 2020. Whatever the violation. We wouldn't be able to do that. Now, there is a sort of a statute of limitations in the code enforcement chapter with regard to repeat violations because there's a five-year time limit to where you can apply a repeat status. But outside of that, we would not be trying to backdate any of these things. We're just trying to clean up some of the records and move these folks forward. All right. Question. Go ahead, Mr. K. That looks like an above-ground pool. It is. All right. I know for an in-ground pool, and this is not necessarily part of our thing here, but is the security fence that's typically required, is that any part of this? That's a good question. And typically around the pool, you have to have security fence. Right. But what we are here for today is for just specifically for the permit for the pool being installed. Give her time. Give her time. They'll have to comply with today's code because they've not, even though it was installed back then, they didn't apply for a permit. So they'll come in, they'll apply for a permit, and then it'll be reviewed under the applicable codes today. And it just somehow never made it to us until now, since back then. Right. I can't speak to that specifically. No, I know. It was just a blanket statement, you know, that I can't believe we haven't seen this come before us before in five years. Normally, we try to keep things on a timeline. We have, you know, standards, operating procedures that we apply in terms of time frames, but we're not, there's no legal requirement that we initiate a case within a certain time. The city always has discretion, and quite often we do work with people. I think in these situations that Ms. Reese has taken over, some of that has been kind of some staffing issues that we've had. Yeah, no worries. Ms. Reese, have you actually seen the pool yourself? No, but I have spoken with her, and I have the emails that there's no denial of the pool. No, the reason I'm asking you that is, if you had seen it, you would have seen if there's a security fence around it, but you haven't seen it. Correct. Because that's a concern. Regardless, when it comes back up, it still needs to be a security fence around it. Yes. Well, and for Daniel's point, I mean, it's, I'm sorry, Jared. Jared. It's got to comply with current code, and if the current code specifies a fence, then in order to get it past inspection, it'll have to, it'll be there, so that'll, the process will handle it. Okay. Hopefully this will, I hope so, after five years. This will move the contractor along to get the permits, you know, cleared out. Any more questions for Inspector Reese on this case? First motion. I move to find the respondent in violation of the totus referred to in the epithet in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Carried. I move to an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before January 19, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day for violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Second. Motion carries. Next case is 3.26 on our agenda, case 188-25, five respondents, Angel Investment Group of Tampa Incorporated at 1039 West Avenue in violation of code for permits, an issue in order with a compliance deadline, and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? No? Inspector Reese, you have the floor. Okay. Inspector Reese, this is a reference to 1039 West Avenue, case number 18825. There's one violation here, again, for permits required, Section 4-203.A.1, specifically for an installation of a shed that is over 100 square feet that is on the property. The original notice was sent August 20th of 2024. My final notice was sent May 13th of 2025. The original compliance date was September 10th of 2024. Here is the physical posting of the notice we're hearing on December 5th, and this is the shed that requires the permit at the time of inspection. They do have extension cords running along, across the back of the yard into the shed there, as well as on the other side. That's the side that you see from street view, and that is a street view. That's a tiny home, eh? That's not a chance, somebody's living there. That's a barn. The previous inspector did, it came in as someone who's living there, but we have to be able to prove that. That's just common sense, isn't it? I mean, somebody's living there, I think. Oh, yeah. See, they even got the lawn chair out front, the lazy boy out there, you know, to sit back at night with the mosquitoes. Yes, and that was my pictures from today. Just for good measure, I did go ahead and take measurements of the shed, so it looks like from side to side, it's going, it's 10 feet, over 10 feet on one side. Oops, sorry. 10 feet long. Yeah, yeah, and 15 on the other, so it's over 100 square feet, that's the point. 150 square feet. Right. Compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit. We're pressing compliance on or before January 19, 2026 to obtain a permit and six months from issuance of permit to complete said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day that it exists. Any questions? All right. Yeah. I noticed from the street view photo that it looked like this thing was like two or three feet from the fence. I'm assuming part of this may be a setback issue? It appears that it will be a setback issue, as well as it appears that the structure is in front of the primary structure. I'll go back to that. But, again, with the process of getting a permit and having proper documentation, that will resolve their, or actually give them their options of what they need to do. Let me go back to it. So, you could, maybe my other angle. There we go. So, you could see this is the primary structure here. And it's very much past, you know, before that. Nice to stand it, yeah. Okay. Any other questions, Ford? Have you been in contact with the owner? Absolutely no contact. Just with the tenants of the primary structure. Got you. Okay. Thank you. I've attempted contact, knocking on the door of the shed, but I've never had anybody open it. What do the tenants say about it? They know that. I mean, have they said anyone's living in it, or no? Well, they have, but in order for that to even apply, they would have to be willing to come testify, which a lot of people are very afraid to do that. Their housing situations, whatever that may be, are not willing to do that. So, that is my reasoning for not going forward with an ADU. You still have to think about safety if something would happen, if somebody was actually living in there, and something did happen, you know. Yeah. And I forbid that, you know, we see that on the news. Oh, sure. I'm ready. Okay. Any other questions, Ford? Inspector Reese? All right. Can I get a first motion on this? Mr. Chairman, I move to find a respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? First motion carries. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before January the 19th, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or several such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Second. Motion carries. All right. 3.27 on our agenda has been withdrawn. 3.28 has been continued to our February meeting. 3.29 on our agenda, Case 191-25, Fine Respondent Richard and Nicole Pendleton at 3268 San Mateo Street in violation of code for permits. An issue in order with compliance deadline and fines if, and compliance if, fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Yes. Will you come forward, sir? Good. If you could give me a moment to speak to Nicole. Okay. He's not sworn in. There's no one sworn in. Nobody's sworn in. There's no one sworn in. There's no one sworn in. There's no one sworn in. There's no one sworn in. Yeah. There you go. Oh, it's a three-o-worn thing. It's a mess. You want to leave. I'll tell you about three minutes. Okay. For a second, I was happy to think that shed was your shed. When I seen the red pop up, I was like, that's Mr. Kinney's shed. That's how we met. I'm mine. Not as big as a barn. That's how Mr. Kinney, me and him, he was out there. He was trying to shoehorn 10 pounds of stuff into a 5-pound bag, and it wasn't working. I can't argue for a 31 guy. Well, shit. I'm awesome. I can't argue for a 31 guy. no are you ready all right let me bring up san mateo for you talk to the defendant here real quick and then i'll get right back to you inspector yes sir will you come up here to the um first you need to be sworn in since you didn't get here do you swear or affirm to tell the truth right throughout your entire testimony yes sir thank you sir will you state come up to the microphone will you state your name and address for the record please richard pendleton 3268 san mateo street okay mr pendleton do you admit or deny the violence i admit the violation all right if you'll have a seat right there we'll get right back okay thank you can i have a first motion please i move to find the respondent violation of the code as referred to and affidated in this case second all in favor aye all opposed first motion carries inspector reese you have the floor inspector cat reese with the city of clearwood uh this is for case 191-25 at 3268 san mateo street since for one violation for permits required section 4-203.a.1 the first notice of violation was sent out may 27th of 2025 and my final was sent july 8th of 2025 original compliance date was june 16th of 2025 and we had signed certified mail on both june 17th and 26th of 2025. this is the uh this was four pavers that were installed in the front of the property so these were the original um again i've taken this over from a previous inspector not that old thank god um up until today i had no communication so we have discussed um he is a you know the property owner now knows um there are revisions because it is an owner builder permit um that need to be met in order for him to get an issue permit so i will work with him to aid him as much as i can through that process to make sure his conditions are met to get an issue permit um so these are the list of the conditions that not have been met yet uh this is a picture of the property today so compliance can be met by obtaining an an issue permit and completing said permit request compliance on and before january 16th actually i'm sorry if i could please correct that to the 19th uh like everyone else um 2026 to obtain an issued permit and six months from issuance of permit to complete said permit if the violation continues to exist impose a fine of 150 per day each day the violation continues to exist um any questions yes what is the permit for it's for the pavers that words based on uh your review today your knowledge of the case is that a reasonable amount of time based on the conditions in the case is that a reasonable amount of time i have asked the property owner he is okay with that time okay thank you but do you feel it can be issued within that time frame um even if it if it isn't if he's working through that process i have the discretion to give him more time and i gladly would do so as long as i have communication from someone i'm always happy to help work you know work with them on the timeline they don't take care of so they the pavers were installed without a prime right it is an after-effect permit okay okay mr pendleton would you have to come back forward i guess i actually she answered everything that i was going to ask you you know with it would come on up come on up yeah so you're going to have all this taken care of by the january 16th yes i will i don't have to travel that's all that's what you're going to ask i was going to ask you and the board may have a note any other questions for mr henderson no no okay okay thank you sir thank you can i get a uh a second motion please i move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before january 19 2026 if the respondent does not comply by that date the board may order a fine of 150 per day for a 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 names second all in favor all opposed motion carried okay now to old business item accept the affidavits of compliance for case uh 4.1.1 through 4.1.5 i'm going to get a motion i'll move to accept the affidavits of compliance as listed second all in favor all opposed motion carried mr chair just just confirming you you you did state that item 3.30 was to be continued to january 28th no it's already it's already on there i did not say that okay but normally he's yeah he's been stating it for the record so we do have individuals waiting for that statement yeah i'm sorry that was my fault i skipped right over continue okay uh item 3.30 on our agenda case number 197-25 is continued to january 28 2026 okay um thank you mr chair you're welcome uh 4.2 on our agenda has been withdrawn uh case 4.3 case number 71-25 accept the affidavit of non-compliance for respondents ns estate at 1877 springtime avenue for exterior surfaces roof maintenance and door and window openings inspector dixon yeah um this is the condition of the property this morning still has a tarp on the roof the windows are boarded up and exterior surface issues so we'd ask that you accept the affidavit of non-compliance all right any questions for inspector no can we get a motion i move to accept the affidavit of non-compliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states if the fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed the city is authorized to foreclose collectors settle such lien second all in favor aye all opposed motion carries uh next uh case is 4.4 on our agenda case number 92-25 except the affidavit of non-compliance for respondents catherine basley patricia croft and philip lamont at 30 island drive for address numbers and roof maintenance there's no one here for that no inspector casper what you got for us come on down looks i'll certainly show you what i got well i'm curious are we presenting affidavits in non-compliance there's no one here now yeah well you don't want to do you guys want to see it nah we don't have to well yes it's still in the appliance um i mean if you want they did put the address on the house but they did it in a way using spray paint and they spelled it out and it's on the garage and that's just not the proper way of doing the address all right well i guess not we will take your testimony as true and uh can i get a first motion that's i moved to accept the affidavit of the non-compliance initial order that imposes fines and states that fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed the city is authorized to foreclose collect or settle such lien second all in favor all opposed motion carries all right now on to uh nuisance abatement lien filings case uh agenda item 6.1 case number 195-25 except the nuisance abatement lien for respondents sjs kks llc at 1090 apache trail for lock clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met there's no one here for that uh inspector dixon you have the floor inspector dixon co-compliance inspector for the city of clearwaters this case 198-25 for 1090 apache trail one violation here for accumulation of trash and debris uh the property was posted mid-november with a client state that's a long compliance day five days or ten days after that and uh certified mail was returned to the office on december the 15th it's an odd-shaped property off the pinellas trail um just south of sunset point near the creeks posting from the uh 21st there's uh it's a large homeless encampment back there there at the time of posting there's three or four tents back there wow was there anybody there when you went and took those pictures uh i didn't do that i was on vacation but uh no i don't think there was when i took these pictures on the tent there were a couple people there yeah but there's uh a couple more tents moved in i know the owner i've been in contact with him he started cleaning it up on sunday i think so he knows there's people living there yeah so there's now there's just debris the tents have been removed but there's still quite a bit of debris back there he's pretty confident he can get it done within these five days but if he doesn't i'd still let the order just in case we have to go in there and clean it up so compliance can be met for the accumulation trash and debris by removing all discarded items trash outdoor furniture from the property requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order okay lord do you have any questions for inspector dick can we get an order 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 and charge the respondent with the reasonable cost which will become a lien on the property if cost fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed the city is authorized to foreclose collect or settle such second all in favor all opposed uh next is six point two on our agenda case one nine nine dash two five except for nuisance debatement lien for respondents freddie harvey at eleven fifty two beckett street was partly withdrawn that's withdrawn that's withdrawn it's withdrawn i'm sorry no you're fine oh my bad it's one agent i didn't get to six four three all right i apologize for that next on our agenda is six point three case number two zero zero dash two five except the nuisance debatement lien for respondents richard ango at 54 somerset street for inoperative vehicle and issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation of compliance is not met there's no one here to speak on that inspector maddox you have the floor kevin maddox code compliance inspector city of clearwater this case is 200 dash 25 for 54 somerset street nuisance abatement originally i got this call from the police department uh reference the vehicle and so i went out to take care of it and some other items which have been in compliance this is the last remaining item one uh violation for code section three dash 1503 b6 inoperable vehicle i noticed the violation was november 21st of this year compliance date by december 1st of this year the green card was received signed and it was posted this is the vehicle in front uh the posting is on the back there was also a sticker in the front you could see it from all sides these are just pictures showing the the state of the vehicle on the 1st of december it remained there i did have contact with the owner he called me it was a story of an ex-girlfriend's card that he did could not get removed and he made a statement of just letting the city take it compliance can be met for inoperable vehicle by ensuring all vehicles are roadworthy have inflated tires and display a current registration sticker on the license plate assigned to the vehicle for case 200-25 requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order any questions board i move to enter an order requiring i'll give you that again i move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct 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 evade maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with reasonable cost which will become a lien on the property the cost fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed the city is authorized to propose collect or settle such lien second all in favor aye all opposed motion carries all right if there is nothing else before us today once again i apologize for my being late all right and uh we will be adjourned thank you