Municipal Code Enforcement Board on 2026-01-28 1:30 PM - Jan 28, 2026

Today's meeting of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board is called to order on January 28, 2026. Welcome, everyone. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. 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 at the entrance to chambers. Please remember to turn off your cell phones. The Municipal Code Enforcement Board consists of seven members who are appointed by the city council we serve voluntarily. 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 the violation, then affirmative relief. Formal rules of evidence do not apply. Each side is limited to 15 minutes, and 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 the chambers. Now I ask all who plan to speak to rise and be sworn in by our clerk. Figure out your entire testimony. I do. Our first order of business is going to be to review and approve the minutes of last month's meeting. May I have a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion approved. Next on the agenda is our new business items. We're going to start out of order today. We're going to call agenda item 3.28, continued from December 17th, case 197-25, firing respondents from Austin Associates at 400 Coronado Avenue in violation of code for illicit discharge and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that? Counselor? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jared Simpson with the city attorney's office. As you know, we continued this case last month as we were discussing a resolution with the respondent here. We do have a stipulated order that we're asking for the board to approve. Just to give you a quick rundown of that, they are accepting responsibility for the situation. The order would find that a violation did occur, and it imposes a fine in the amount of $42,500. This is a stipulated order that the parties have agreed to. If you have more questions about it, the staff's here to answer that, but we're asking that you approve this. This is something that both the parties have agreed as a fair resolution to this situation. Board, do you have any questions for Counselor Simpson? No. We would put this under just a regular motion. We ask the motion to be just to approve the stipulated order as presented. Okay. Would we have to find them in violation first? Is it first motion? No. No. Okay. Let's adopt the stipulated order. Can I get a motion to find them in violation? I move to accept the stipulated order as presented in case number 197-25. Can I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Now back to our order here. 3.1 on our agenda has been withdrawn. 3.2 on our agenda is continued from November 18, 2025, case number 146-25, fine respondents, Vindbach and Tran Thuha at 585 Sky Harbor Drive, number 121 in violation of code for residential business tax receipt and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that? No? Inspector, you have the floor. Yes, your board. We're just seeking a declaration of violation on this case. They brought the property in compliance, but it just took them quite a while to do so. So we would like to request that declaration. And you guys are satisfied with it being in compliance? Okay. Can I have a declaration then? I have a question first. Okay. And that is, would it be the standard first motion in violation or was in violation? Was. Was. Was. Yeah. Okay. The full motion, correct? That's a nuisance. All right. That's a nuisance abatement violation. Right here. Declaration. 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. I'm a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next is 3.3 on our agenda has been withdrawn. 3.4 was continued from December 17th, 2025, is continued to February. I'm sorry. I didn't see that one. 3.5 on our agenda is drawn. 3.6 on the agenda is withdrawn. Case 3.7 on our agenda, case 01-26, fine respondent, non-Martian Vaughn Burns, rev trust at 1535 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in violation of code for portable storage unit, an issue in order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Would you come forward, sir? Will you please state your name for the record to our clerk, please? Right. My name is Vico Lawson, and I represent Mr. Don Martin for the variance. First thing I'm going to ask, do you admit or deny the violation? Deny. You deny the violation? If you'll have a seat right there, we'll bring the city up to explain the case, and we'll get back to you. Thank you, sir. Hello, Inspector. You have the floor. Thank you. Vicki Setup, Code Compliance Inspector with the City of Clearwater. This is for case number 01-26 for 1535 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. There is one violation here for a portable storage unit, Code Section 3-2103, H1 and H2. Notice the violation was sent on 9-24-25 with a compliance date of 10-15-25. The certified mail receipt was received on 10-10-25. This is a picture dated on October 1st of the – it's part of a semi-trailer that's parked out there. There is no cap to it. It's just the trailer itself. This is a side view picture of it. This is another picture of it showing that the things that it sits on, they're broken. Closer up photo of that. This picture was taken today showing you that it's still there, that things are still broken, it's being held up by wood. Compliance can be met for the storage container by removing the storage container. Request – I'm sorry. Request compliance on before February 25th, 2026. If the violations continue to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day the violation continues to exist. All right. Thank you. I'll have the – can you come back up, please? You've seen the City's evidence. How are you going to respond? Yes, so Mr. von Berns had an opportunity to exchange some emails with the inspector, and the primary concern was since the trailer was purchased as a mode of transportation to get goods sold at the restaurant to the restaurant, and during the recent hurricanes, it was damaged, and since my – Mr. von Berns speaks Polish fluently, I speak Polish as well, so if you don't mind, I will interpret what he's telling me. So the damage that was experienced, we actually had a chance to see that the images showed that the legs supporting the trailer were damaged. So while at this moment, Mr. von Berns is not able to use it for transportation, it was never used for storage. And so that was the primary concern expressed in his emails was, well, I am not using it as a portable storage unit. Could you please provide a definition? Because the handbook, the city – the code compliance handbook fails to define a portable storage unit. And so that's the foundation of the misunderstanding. Mr. von Berns, that is all. So you're just saying that it's not being used for storage, but – so it's okay to be there? I mean – So it is a registered trailer. The intent is to use it for transportation and to transport goods that are sold at the restaurant, not to store anything there. Yes, it is currently damaged, and Mr. von Berns intends to repair it when he has the funds available. He purchased the trailer with funds from – loaned from the government to develop his business, to grow his business. And, yes, due to the hurricane, it was damaged, and he's unable to use it at the time. But he never intended to use it as a storage unit. He wants to use it for transportation. That's his goal. Now, do you think you're going to be able to have this trailer fixed and moved out of there? Because one way or the other, it can't – I don't think it can sit there, even empty or full, you know what I mean, like in the condition that it's in. So is the – February 25th, is that going to be enough time for him to get it back in operating order and get it out of there? So Mr. von Berns is hoping to clarify, because, see, it wasn't expressed in the notices to him that the primary concern is the condition. Yes, he wants to fix it. He doesn't know if he will be able to do it by February 25th. The business at the restaurant is slower than he expected, slower than he anticipated. However, his concern is he feels that he's being, well, intimidated into – that there's a claim that it's a portable storage unit. That's not the case. It's just that he didn't intentionally damage the trailer. It's the hurricane that damaged the trailer. Oh, yeah, I understand that. So that's his concern. We just can't, like, leave – have an open, you know, whenever he gets it done. We have to have a time. We give him to the 2050 next month. If he needs another 30 days, maybe we'll extend it out until March. But we have to have a timeline. We just can't leave it as an open – you know, get it fixed whenever you can. Mr. Chair, I have questions. May I? Counselor? Oh, thank you. When this case was initiated, I think we were of the impression that it was being used for storage. That's why the case was put forward under the Portable Storage Unit Code. There is a definition for that in our code, and it basically says it's used for storage. If their testimony today under oath is that it's not being used for storage, then, you know, that does contradict what we were initially bringing the case under, the theory that we initially brought the case under. But the fact that the condition of it is kind of a separate issue that was not noticed. We – the city – and it would be my advice to the staff to re-notice, to focus on the nuisance part of it, given the condition. It's my understanding, though, that when this first started, the trailer wasn't exactly in the condition. It's actually deteriorated in condition. So the condition it's in is a violation. It's just under a different code section, and we would – I would recommend that we re-notice for that section. Whether or not he can continue to park it there, I believe that this is a commercial property, so it's a different type of rules for commercial vehicles there. But that's something that I think we can work out with the staff. I guess I would just say that based on what they're saying, unless our inspector has evidence to contradict the storage component, that is the case that we've brought forward. It doesn't change the fact that the trailer would need to be repaired, but we, as a formality, we would re-notice under a different code section for that. Do you want to withdraw it or continue it? Well, I guess I would put that to you. I don't know how – and since I've been here, we've not amended our notice and continued the case. Right. That would obviously be our preference because I'm not aware of any legal reason why we couldn't just re-issue a notice and then come back next month. Right. So why don't we just continue it until pending what the city does with the notice? Unless our inspector has some evidence to contradict the storage component, and then I would certainly like to hear from her on that part of it. I mean, it does – it's a – you know, it's a trailer that could be used for that. We were of the impression that's how the case was initiated. The condition of the trailer deteriorated from then, so do you have anything to add to that part of the inspector? Sure. Would we want to dismiss it and just have her re-issue her for her? Let's see what the inspector has to say. You want to step up? Excuse me. So when I first went out to the property, there were several trailers and food trucks there and several ABVs, including that semi-trailer. I did speak to a girl there who said that the owner was her husband. He was out of town, out of the country. I went over all the violations with her, and when we got to the storage container, she did express to me that they use that for storage, that it has to be there. They store a lot of stuff in there that they use for the restaurant. I, at that time, explained to her that they couldn't have that there out of storage, and she said that she wouldn't be able to get it removed from the property until her husband got back from wherever he was, was in another country. And this is where we've ended up because nothing's been done with it. My case is for the storage container. It wasn't for the fact that it's deteriorating. It's been deteriorating for the last two years, so that's irrelevant to this. This was just because she stated they are using that as a storage container. It has not moved. I've never seen a semi hooked up to it. I've never even seen the semi-cap on the property. It's just that container. So, I mean, based on that, our position is that the board does have sufficient evidence to determine that it's a storage container and that it needs to be removed. Certainly, it's within the board to weigh the evidence and make a decision. Was there any reason, other than your wife telling the truth, that she would say that you were using it for storage? So, the person that the inspector spoke to at the premises, the wife of Mr. Von Burns, never consulted with him on what the trailer is actually going to be used for. And, no, it was not used as a storage. There is no locking mechanism. It's available. You can open the door. Nothing there is of being protected and of value in storage. So, that's the position. And Mr. Von Burns' wife wanted to cooperate and try and work with the inspector. But she only works there. He's the owner of the restaurant. And he wasn't consulted on it. But his wife doesn't know. I mean, like my wife knows what's, you know, going on on my property. You know, that's what I'm saying. It just, and she has no reason to perjure herself. Right. In front of here. So, I'm going to take the testimony as truthful. Right. And that his wife did say that there was being stuff stored in there. Right. Board members, board, do you have any other questions that you, that's my opinion on it. I'm kind of ambivalent on it in that I think that, I understand she said it was used for storage. I don't see any photos of, you know, stuff being stored in it. So, I don't know one way or the other. I mean, I believe what the inspector is telling us and what she said. I think that, based on Jared's statement, that there are other, perhaps, other causes of actions that are pertinent to, also pertinent to the existence of it there, that perhaps we should let the city revisit it, and it's my, you know, unless somebody wants to call it a violation. Board, do you guys want to weigh in on this? Do we need to come up with that? It's rough knowing which way to go because, as Bob said, there's no picture of evidence of anything in the storage unit or the trailer. I know. So, it's kind of hard to decide. Well, do we know whether it's violating another code or not? It is. It is, but they wasn't sited for that. We're only sited here for storage, not the condition. And that's the basis of trying it back to the city to pursue other causes under the code for correcting whatever needs to be corrected. We could dismiss this, and then they could go back with a withdrawal. Well, do we continue this one and start up the second one and try to confirm one way or the other by looking in that trailer? Our preference would be to continue because, you know, we have noticed they're obviously participating in our process. They're here today. This is not an imminent safety issue. This is an aesthetic and, you know, neighborhood aesthetic issue that we're trying to, you know, make sure everything looks nice. It is a commercial property, so they do have some rights to park commercial vehicles there. And we obviously want to respect that. I understand this business has been there for a very long time and has been in our community for a long time. So we're very sensitive to all those things. We're willing to work with them. The fact that they're here participating in our process is good. And so we would just ask to continue rather than dismiss because we don't need to necessarily start over. There's lots of different ways that this can be approached. So I would just ask for a continuance, and then I can work with the staff and hopefully work with the property to try to figure out a reasonable solution. I have a question for you, Counselor. If we move to continue, what time frame would be appropriate, 30 days, 60 days? We can put something together very quickly, and then we will file with the clerk, whether it be a supplemental notice or something to that effect. We just ask to go to the next meeting. Okay. That sounds all right with me. Aboard, does that sound? Yes. Okay. All right. Can I get just a motion to continue this until our February meeting? I move to continue case number 1-26 to the March meeting and the date of this? It is February 25th. February 25th. February 25th. To the February meeting, February 25th. I second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. We're going to continue it until next month. Thank you. All right. Next on our agenda is 3.8, case number 02-26. Find respondents Gilbert G. Janelli at 1411 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in violation of code for exterior surfaces and roof maintenance and issue an order with a compliance deadline and find if compliance is not made. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Can you come forward, please? If you will, state your name and address to our clerk for the record. Sure, Gilbert G. Janelli, 909 South Fort Harrison Avenue in Clearwater, 33756. All right. Mr. Janelli, are you admitting or denying the violation? Admitting. There's violations there. Admitting the violation today? Building needs help, and we've got a plan. Okay. Well, thank you, and have a seat right there. My new tenant is here to speak as well. Okay. Can I get 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? First motion carries. Inspector, you have the floor. Vicki Setteth, Code Compliance Inspector with the City of Clearwater. This is for Case 02-26 for 1411 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. There are two violations at this property, the first one being exterior surfaces, Code Section 3-1502B, and roof maintenance, Code Section 3-1502D1, D3, and D5. Notice a violation was sent on August 28th of 2025 with a compliance date of 9-28-2025. The certified mail receipt was received on 9-15-2025. This is a picture of the building. It's kind of the front side. Actually, there's Gulf to Bay in the front, and this is the parking lot that connects to South Hill Crest. Here's a picture of some of the roof damage, some of the exterior. This is the side back view, hole in the roof. This is leading up to the stairwell. This is some of the concrete that's coming off the wall. Some more wood rot and damage. Again, just a full picture of the different paint schemes that are going on. So then he went back, had somebody go out there, and you can see up in the corner where they took a soffit and just tried to cover up the rotted wood that was along the roof edge. There's still more soffit falling down, a lot of mix-matched paint, some things that weren't painted at all. There's a hole in the wall right there next to the door on the left. Nothing was done in the back. This thing, I had pointed out to him on Monday how dangerous it was, and it was falling down. And when I went out there today, it had completely fallen down off the side of the building. More peeling paint to the stairwell, peeling paint on the side, soffit still falling down, some stuff still not painted in the front of the building. Again, the front of the building, soffit falling down, part of the roof missing, the hole still in the wall, or the hole still in the roof. Compliance can be met for the exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structural and decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, and faded peeling paint. Patching, painting, or resurfacing shall be accomplished to match the existing or adjacent surfaces as to the materials, color, bond, and joining. Compliance can be met for the roof by fixing all holes and maintaining the roof in a safe, secure, and watertight condition or replacing the roof. Request compliance, honor before February 27th, 2026, that the violation continues to exist. Impose a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day the violation continues to exist. And there are two violations there. Board, do you have any questions for Inspector? Mr. Genelli, can you come back up, sir? Yes, sir. You think you're going to be able to get all this done by February the 27th? No, sir. I've done magic before, but that's a challenge. So what's your timeline, you're thinking? Well, we started to work on the building, and then we had two contracts blow up on us for financial reasons that the prospective tenant couldn't obtain financing to go along with the city grant that's being offered in the East Gateway area. I've owned the building for a long time. We had some very successful tenants in there in the beginning. Unfortunately, the city allowed the soup kitchen to move into its present location, and in my opinion, that's one of the big death nails of the East Gateway and even parts of downtown. Things are looking a whole lot better. The sound has been a great asset to the city. There's new construction going on downtown. The Church of Scientology has done remarkable with a lot of their properties. They have remodeled them. They're out for lease. There's interest. However, it's still slow downtown. It's still slow in the East Gateway. You've got probably one of the top realtors in the city of Clearwater here that can testify about downtown real estate. She knows probably every piece. So the building has been a challenge for what is the highest and best use for the property. It may not be a restaurant. It may be to knock it down and build some housing there. But fortunately, I have a new tenant who has proven in the area. He has a very successful business. And we've looked at the building extensively. And he has assured us that he can make things work there. So the process for that being is that we can apply. The city, through the CRA, has grant money available for rehab. That takes time. So we have to apply for the grant. That takes anywhere from one to three months for that process to occur. If we're given the grant, then it's going to take another month or two to draw a plan, submit it to the city for approval for construction through a general contractor to get a permit to rebuild it. And then it's going to take six to eight months for construction to finish it. We're not talking about just what's here. We're talking about renovating the entire building, both inside and out. That's our plan. And that figure is going to be about $1.2 to $1.4 million of cost. So we're not talking about just fixing what's here. We're talking about completing the entire process. And in good faith, because the roof does need work, I've applied for a roofing permit. And I don't know if it's been issued yet, but it's in the application process through Baker Roofing, which is a local roofing company. Well, unfortunately, we're not going to be able to give you a year, year and a half to get this done. No, no, no, I understand. So what about the exterior surfaces and the roof maintenance? Can that be accomplished within, you know, by our March meeting? No, it cannot, because here's why. If we don't know exactly what we're going to do with the roof, we may take off the second floor and put a deck there. We have to see if the city will allow us to do that. So that could be pretty quick. And we've done this in the past, and the city's done this in the past. We can set up every month or two, we can have a continuation, we can update the city staff as to what we're doing. They can be right along with us in the permit process. I understand that you can't give me all this time, but we don't want to just fix what's here and then have to redo it if we renovate the entire building. We're just trying to get you to come into compliance. I understand that. On this case. So all the little Chinese things that happen, that's all coming off. That's not going to be part of the new. That's going to be, the whole structure is going to be completely different. So if we just band-aid what's here, in three or four or five months, all that's going to come down. And I'd rather, you know, spend the money to rehab the whole building. It's a different case, and I understand we need some cooperation between the city. And Ms. Mulder, she's not here today, but she said, if we're in the process and we're in the grant process, they will work with it. We didn't come to specific what does that mean. But I think as a solution, if we have periodic updates with the board, I can come back here, or with city staff, or both, that will keep you abreast. And we're going to move as fast forward as we can, as the city will allow us to do. I mean, there's a lot of future unknowns for you, though, you know. How much is the grant going to be? Are you going to be able to, you know, is your guy here, is he going to be able to come through? You know, there's a lot of gray area, man. There is. You know. But we've been encouraged by the CRA to apply for the grant, for grants. I have questions. We have, the funds are available to cover the work. Or I wouldn't be here today. Mr. Engel? Mr. Deneley, have you looked at the estimated or evaluated the cost of just coming into compliance with the existing violations? Well, to fix the building outside properly, it really needs to be re-stuccoed. Understood. While I understand that as a contractor, I'm looking at what violations the code enforcement officer has brought and what it would require to get into compliance with those. So understanding what your long-term intentions and plans are and all of that, because of the time involved, it seems in our world it's quite a long time in order to make the correct violations. So I'm focusing on what would be the cost, the minimal cost, to get into compliance with the existing violations that the inspector has shown us. We had a quote for a roof of about $40,000. We have not bid out the rest of it to come into compliance. But once again, we may take, if you see the building, and you can certainly go out, and I'll be happy to meet you there and show you what we're going to do, but we may take off the second floor. If the city will allow us to put a deck on top of the building, then we're going to take out the second floor. So doing the roof would be do the roof and then take it out. Understood. Again, I'm looking at focusing on the code compliance case, understanding what your long-term plans are, and I think that's great. I mean, we can fix some holes, we can replace the rotten wood, we can paint the building, and I don't mind doing that. I'll be happy to do that. But we're going to re-stucco the whole building. And we may change the front doors, we may change the windows, we may add doors, we may subtract doors as part of the total rehab of the building. And you know you're in construction, so you know what we're up against. What's IMD if you don't get the grant? He says we'll get the grant. Do you all the work that we were just talking about? Yeah. Okay. Or if we don't get the grant, then I would get some opinions by, like, Ms. Anderson as to what would be the highest and best use for us to do with the property, which may be level the building and build housing. There are a lot of good realtors around that know Clearwater better than I do. So that would be an option that we have. And are you going to be pursuing the grant and pursuing the city's permission to do what you want to do? Absolutely. At the same time? Concurrently? Concurrently. Okay. I would say we do 90 days, have him come back. If he doesn't have the grant, then he's going to have to go forward with the cleanup. And if he's got the grant, then we figure out the time plan now. Do you have any? The city have any? I don't have anything to add. I guess I don't know if staff wants to comment on any of what's been said. Yeah. Yeah. Kevin wants to. Our building official would like to have a word. Yeah. You step forward, sir. We hear all sides here so we can figure out what to do with this place. I'm Kevin Garriott with the building department, City of Clearwater, building official. And I just want to let Dr. Janelli and the board know that we get inquiries from the CRA all the time about their loans and their grants, finding out if people have code violations before they get any approval to grants. So that needs to be considered. You need to be aware of that. And don't count on something if, you know, I don't know all the details, so I can't go into a great explanation, but I know they check with our office all the time on that sort of thing. For code violations before any grant money is awarded. Does that mean that? So somehow they're connected. I don't know how. Okay. How it would need to come from them, but I know they check with us all the time. Would you be able to tell us definitively or tell us one way or the other if there are violations on a property that it limits or accepts the grant until the violations are corrected? Is that how it works? Do you know? That answer would need to come from the CRA. No, ma'am. Yeah. If I may, if there is more questions about the grant program, I would ask if we could bring that back to you next month. I would assume that there are occasions where we do provide grant money on properties where violations occur, but I would assume that all of those violations would need to be remedied as part of the expenditures of the grant. So that could be, but I'm not personally familiar with the grant program that he's discussing, and I haven't been involved in any of the conversations that they're talking about, so I can't really help. But, you know, I would prefer a shorter time than 90 days if there's just to answer these questions about the grants and things like that. We could come back next month and we could tell you what grant programs that they're looking at, what the requirements of those programs are, all that stuff. We could get that information to you pretty quickly. I have a question. Dr. Janelli, would you be able to fix the unsafe areas, maybe cover that hole into the building, maybe slap some paint on so that it's all consistent, like do some minor until you get the grant so that there aren't such, you know, terrible out points on the building? Yes. Ms. Anderson, we worked doing that, but then we had a prospective tenant, so we stopped because they wanted to redo the whole building. So we were working on that. You can see some of the pictures in the beginning from what they are today. Right. So we were moving forward with that to do the bare minimum. And could you do that within the next 30 days? I could attempt to do that. The roof, that's going to be a problem. Right. That's going to be the biggest, the grounds and the building, that's much easier to handle than a $40,000, $50,000 roof. Right, exactly. Okay. So we can, you know, we can make it safe outside. We do have, you know, a huge homeless problem. There's trash there. My guys go out every two or three weeks, and every two or three weeks there's six bags of trash from homeless people because the property is vacant. Have you considered looking at, rather than replacing the roof, because I understand that what your long-term plan is based on what you've told us, have you considered having the appearance or the roof repaired to satisfy the appearance issues until you do your major project? I'm not a roofer, but I've had three roofing companies look at that. That was my first choice. And we didn't ask the third roofer who got the permit whether he would be willing just to repair it. But there's apparently some liability on their part that if it's not done to code, then they have a responsibility for that as a roofing company. We lost a lot of shingles from a couple of holes in the roof from the hurricane. Gotcha. I mean, we can fix the holes in the roof. We can certainly put some shingles back, but it's not going to be – the roof is still going to be – needs new shingles. It needs other wood replacement and other things. Understood. I'm thinking, again, my focus is based on the case before us in terms of the appearance and satisfying the code compliance issues with the code compliance officer. And if that – if you're able to make that go away, then you're satisfied here and you can rock and roll with your future project. Right. So, again, my focus is on what's a workable, reasonable way and amount of time to make the code compliance issue go away so we can resolve this case. We can make it all go away. It's going to cost about probably $100,000, maybe more. But then we're going to redo it if we move forward with redoing the building. Everything we would do to band-aid the problem now would have to be redone if we're going to rehab the whole building. Understood. In six months. Understood. That's the dilemma. You know, it's a two-way street here. We're looking for a little bit of room to work. And I was – we were led to believe that the CRA knows the condition of the building, and they've encouraged us to apply for the grant. Mr. Delanga can speak to that. And he has experience with the CRA presently with his business and the property. Okay. Understood. I think Kevin wants to say something. Kevin. Yes, thank you. I have one other thing to add that we just checked with the permitting status, and with the exception of one document, the roof permit is ready to issue. So that's just a filling out a paper and signing it. So they virtually have a roof permit right now. But that's for the roof, the current roof, not taking it off and doing their deck if they get the grant. I would presume, but I don't have the documents in front of me right now. Dr. Janelli is saying yes. Okay. Yeah, it's for a re-roof in the present condition. And the roofer said that he's done work with – he's got grants from the city as well, and he's worked with the city, Baker Ruby. And he's willing to work with us in the grants, in getting the grant to help with the rehab. So he's aware of all that. Yeah, we want to try to – we want for you to get the grants, and we want you to get the building up, and we definitely want new businesses in Clearwater and stuff. There's nobody – But we've got to resolve this somehow, and with, you know, just our main two things, the exterior service and the root mason. We just can't – we can't wait for, you know, maybe a grant, maybe not. Maybe we're going to tear the roof off. Maybe we're not. There's – you know, you brought us nothing concrete for us to sit and decide to – in your favor, you know, about it. You just keep giving us these scenarios where it may happen and it may not. You know, we can't go on that, you know. Well, I think – You know, we want to work with you, but, I mean, she was showing us pictures from back in October, you know, so it's been, you know, three or four months. Yeah, yeah, hold on. If you have 60 days, I talk with the CRA. I think we got approved for $800,000 to finish this. And only I need, like, three contractors to give me an estimate for inside and outside. I can't hear you. Got you. Can you talk with the mic? Yeah. I need, like, a three contractors to get my estimate from inside and outside. And I already talked with the city of Claywater. I think they're ready to give me, like, around $800,000 to fix everything inside and outside. We need, like, 60 more days to finish all the paper to the city give us approval for all these things. I mean, I don't have any problem giving them out until our March meeting, but that's – you know, we'll go ahead with our second motion and just change that February to the March. And then you want to ask for an update or you want to establish fines at that point? Well, you know, we'll ask for – definitely ask for an update from at least the inspector as long as she, you know, continues to – as long as they – Dr. Janelli keeps in contact with our inspector. You know, I mean, that's where I would be. So, I mean – Mr. Chair? Yes. If I may. In the past, we have had exterior service violations where, you know, they look superficial and then as they get in, they realize there's a lot more work that needs to be done. They pull permits. And we wait to file the affidavit of noncompliance and we let them work through the permit before we file that affidavit. Because, as you know, you give a deadline, the city has to file that affidavit of noncompliance to actually trigger the fine and come back to you to get approval of that. So – Is that determined on our deadline? I mean, if it's not done by, like, the 25th, it will automatically trigger that? No, that's what I'm saying is that we – on the – you give us a deadline and then on the day after the deadline, our inspector goes out to the property. If it's still in violation, they write up a document called an affidavit of noncompliance. You see those on your agenda as well. And we bring it back. But, obviously, that's a determination for the inspector to make at that time, the day after the deadline. What I'm saying is that in the past, we've had situations where exterior surface violations open up to become a lot more. We've paused. Even though, technically, they are in violation the day after the deadline, we wait to file that affidavit. We let them work through the permit. We let them, you know, comply with the inspections and go through the permitting process. And then we either file it as complied if that happens or we file the affidavit of – if it gets stalled for some reason, we bring that affidavit of noncompliance at a later time. So that's – what we would suggest here is that if you impose a deadline, if you move it out as you were discussing, that you move the deadline out a little bit further, give them a little bit more time, if they apply for the grant, they get the grant, they get the permit, everything looks like it's moving, we can pause on filing that affidavit of noncompliance and let them work through those processes. And I can assure you, when we start to fix it, we're going to run into – I've already gone down that route with the contractors. And to band-aid the stuccos, to band-aid the cracks in the walls is a bigger job than just putting a little mud on it. We understand. That's why we're trying to – we're trying to find a solution here to – that kind of, like, covers everything and makes everyone – If I could suggest, in a couple of months we'll have a good direction from the CRA and the grant, and we'll know exactly where we'll be. And if we get – in our first meeting with them, if we get positive direction, we'll start moving ahead with plans and everything else to expedite the time. Time is money for us as well. Well, Lord, do we have any – do you have any problems with extending this out to our March 25th meeting? We're going to go ahead and – and we're going to go ahead with our second motion. We're going to give a deadline of March 25th of our meeting. And then, just like he said, you know, Jared said that if they show, you know, stuff's moving forward and everything, they can go ahead and – With permits, they can go ahead and let them work, and they don't have to immediately file on the 25th if he hasn't got – you know, if the inspector shows that there's progress being made, then they can – like council said, they can work through the permit and not start accruing fines. It would be up to the inspector to – for that paperwork. The one question I have is – or what we'd like to know, and you can probably know that by next meeting, is are they required to collect – correct code violations before they get the grant? This would be dependent on the grant program. You know, CRA has a lot of different grant programs. Some of them are contingent on federal requirements and things. I'd have to know what program they're looking at and then be able to look at those particular program rules. That would expedite it a little bit, but absent that, I mean, you know, 60, 90 days. He said one to three months, you know, so if you want to come back to two months and then ask for another month, you know, or we can just – Well, that'll be dependent on what the inspector finds on March 25th, you know. If she goes out there and sees that there's – you know, he's got the roof permit and she sees stuff happening and progress is being made, then she doesn't have to fill out her affidavit of noncompliance. She doesn't have to fill that – start that paperwork. You know, she can come back to – you know, and say, hey, there's – she doesn't even have to come back to us. If we don't see it on our docket, then we don't – we know that there must be progress being made, you know. So – and if not, she'll be here on the 25th saying – with an affidavit of noncompliance for us to, you know, approve. And then the fines will start back, you know. Okay, well, that's the middle ground. Yeah. Dr. Genley has a question. I'm getting a little confused. We could go out tomorrow and make the building safe and secure all that. As far as painting and fixing the stucco and all that and even the roof, that's expensive. And we'd like to certainly qualify for the grant if that's possible. I understand there's different grants and there's different scenarios with the grant. We have been led to believe that the grant is going to be issued regardless of whether there's code violations or not. But within a couple of months, we're going to know one way or the other where we're going to get the grant. It may not – they may not grant the grant in two months. It may take a little longer for the paperwork because I understand the city council has to sign off on the grant after it's approved. And that may take a cycle of 30 days. So, you know, even the grants approved, I believe the majority of the grants have to be signed off by city council. Well, we're not – I think our general understanding is that if there's movement in that direction, then, you know, the city has the opportunity to go compliance and the city has the ability to give you some latitude. Cool. Good. So even though we set a date on this, that you still have – It all depends on what your inspector comes out and finds on the 25th of March. We'd like a working relationship. Oh, yeah. Yeah, of course. Definitely. Mr. Chair, and I'll also add that if the board does find the violation and pose a deadline today, it would – like you said, it would not come back if we did not file the affidavit of noncompliance. But if we did file the affidavit of noncompliance, that would come before you all. And we have had situations where, you know, even though that's a straight determination, was it in violation on that day or not, we've had the board have questions and we've postponed decisions on accepting those affidavits pending the outcome of those questions that the board had. So that would be another option. And that gives the city at least the assurance of having some kind of hard deadline in place. One more thing. If you go through with that, the compliance may not happen for 10 months or so, but we're – as long as you're in contact with this lady right here, then, you know, she's got – she controls the pin stroke of that affidavit of noncompliance. So in 60 – if we give you 60 days and she comes out there and you haven't done nothing and there's more stuff falling off the building, she's going to write that affidavit of noncompliance. Well, but see, nothing – But I need a little more direction as to what is – Exterior surfaces and roof maintenance. That's – I can't make it any clearer than that. So in 60 days, if we go that route, you need to show some sort of improvement in your roof and your exterior surfaces, and that will be up to her to determine, you know, if it's – because we're not – we can't put it out for a year or two years until – like I said, there's too much gray area here, doctor, you know, that we can't just leave up in the air. You know, we have to – you know, we work for all the citizens of Clearwater, not just, you know, one person that owns a building. I understand. Well, I mean, we can plug the holes in the roof and put new wood in and put a few new shingles here and there. Whatever you – But it's not going to look like it should, and the building isn't going to look like it should because part of the outside of the building is going to be demoed anyway. I don't think you're understanding what we're saying. As long as she sees progress on the 25th of March, I don't know what that progress would be. You're throwing out a scenario that's not even happened yet. Okay. And you're trying to gain more time, and it's not going to happen, you know. No, we'll – I think 60 days is going to be – We'll make some movement. You know. Don't have a problem with that. All right. If I can get a second motion on that. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before March 25th, 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's authorized foreclosed collector settles such lien. Seconds. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. Second motion. Thank you. All right. Next on our agenda is 3.9, case 03-26. Fine respondent is Kathy Barrow at 1910 Union Street in violation of code for exterior services. Roof maintenance, door and window openings, exterior storage, and public health, safety, and welfare nuisance. Pool and issue an order with compliance deadline if fine and compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? No. Inspector Casper, you have the floor. I'll second. Give it a second. It's loading in. Good afternoon, board. Daniel Kasman, code enforcement inspector for the city of Clearwater. This is case number 03-26 for 1910 Union Street. There are five violations here for code section 3-1502B for exterior surfaces, code section 3-1502D1 and D5 for roof maintenance, code section 3-1502C1, C3, and C4 for door and window maintenance, code section 3-1503B5 for hazardous pool, code section 3-1502G1, G2, and G3 for exterior storage. These are the dates of the notice of violation were sent out with compliance date. They did the affidavit of posting the same day of the notice of violation, notice of hearing, posted for today's hearing on the 15th of this month. This is 1910 Union Street. I had noticed when I drove by that the garage door was falling out of the garage. I got closer, many items being stored outdoors on the premises, some damage to the fascia there on the garage. An extra neighbor called me and complained about the rear of the property. There was much stuff being stored outdoors, and there was also damage, again, to the fascia and the soffits. Some of the exterior pool was green. This is the date of my affidavit of posting on the 14th of October. This is my pictures of the compliance date afterward. The garage door is still damaged, falling out, damaged the roof there in the rear, hole in the side of the building, damaged the roof and soffits. The pool hasn't been cleaned. All the items are still in the yard. This was the notice of hearing for today's hearing on the 15th, posted. Closer look up front. Here were the photos of today, pretty much the same. Some damage to the roof corner. The rear of the property is still in the same shape. Still got a hole in the wall up there. And the pool still hasn't been cleaned. Appliance has been met for the exterior surface by repairing any damage, removing any chipped repealing paint, repairing or repainting when necessary. Appliance has been met for the roof maintenance by repairing any damage to the roof, fascia, and soffits. Appliance has been met for door and window maintenance by repairing the garage door, repairing and replacing any damaged windows or doors. Appliance has been met for the hazardous pool by cleaning the pool and ensuring the water is clear by draining the pool completely. Appliance has been met for exterior storage by removing from the grounds of the property any appliances, furniture, buckets, bins, tires, shopping carts, motors, and other missing items not meant for outdoor use. And I'm requesting appliance out of before February 28th, 2026, or a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day the violations continue to exist. Is there anyone at the property? The story I've gotten from neighbors and people in the neighborhood is that the property was owned by a Gabriel Varro, and he had a wife and a son, and Gabriel passed away. The wife's name is Kathy Varro, and Gabriel Jr. resides at the property, but Kathy Varro is incapacitated in some way, and no one really does anything with it. Gabriel just lives there with some other people, and their property is also in foreclosure right now, but it's nice out of there. That's probably another reason they're not, you know. Yeah, so it's probably what's going to end up happening is the bank going to come in possession of the property and probably take care of the violations, but I just wanted to make sure they were addressed and the neighbors also had complaints about them. Do you have any more? Do we have any questions for Inspector Kasper? Can I get a first motion? Do we want to change that date from the 28th to the 25th when the board meets? I was given 30 days. It's 30 days out from today. Yeah, I don't know if that's... I wasn't trying to do it off the meeting. That pushes us into the next meeting. I mean, I don't have a problem. I mean, do you have a problem with 27 days or 28 days instead of 30? Well, I don't mind either way. It's just when I go to file the affidavit of non-compliance, if you don't come to compliance, you're not going to hear it at next month's meeting anyway. Exactly, yeah, right. You won't hear it until the following meeting. Okay. So it doesn't matter. Then it doesn't matter. Yeah, so. Can we get a first motion? I move to find the responder in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. I second it. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? First motion carries. You get a second? I move to enter an order requiring a respondent to correct the violations on or before February 28th. 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's authorized foreclosed collector settles such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. Second motion carries. Next case is 3.10 on our agenda. Case number 04-26. Fine respondents. Lee Coriel, a state at 315 North Corona Avenue in violation of code for roof maintenance. An issue in order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not made. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Nope. Inspector Casman, you have the floor. Good afternoon again, board. Daniel Casman, code enforcement inspector for the city of Clearwater. This is case number 04-26 for 315 North Corona Avenue. There was one violation here for code section 3-1502-D1 and D3 for roof maintenance. These are the dates the notice of violation went out. The affidavit posted being done on the same day of the notice of violation. I understood that the gentleman here had passed, and I was in contact with someone claiming to be one of his heirs. They did end up maintaining the yard and putting the address on the property, and I wasn't talking with them about the roof and what they were planning on doing with it, and then I hadn't spoken with them since. They hadn't tried to get back in contact with me. But this is 315 North Corona Avenue. If you notice there, there's a fair amount of pine needles in the roof, but at the upper left, you see there's a tarp. It's being held out with logs on that portion of the roof. This is a look from the side. I think I know where them logs came from. Well, I'm going to assume maybe the end of that pine tree, but you look in the back, there's a heavy mat of pine needles that's been accumulating on the rear property for a while on that roof. That's roofs. Okay. I went back into the compliance date. It's just the other side of the property. They still had the large mat of pine needles, and they still haven't repaired that section on the roof. Here's the notice of hearing for today's hearing on the 15th. And then from this morning, same issues with the property. So, compliance meant for the roof maintenance by removal of the tarp from the roof of the home and repair any damage to the roof, removal of all pine needles and branches from the roof of the home. And I'm requesting compliance on it before February 28th, 2026, or a fine of $150 per day per violation. Appreciate it. The violation continues to exist. Board, do we have any questions for Inspector? No. Can I have a first motion? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? First motion carries. Second. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before February 28th. 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? Motion carries. All right. Next case is 3-11. On our agenda, case 05-26, fine respondent Thomas Rakowski at 1384 Seabree Street in violation code for parking lot services, and issue an order with a compliance deadline, and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? No. Inspector Jensen, you have this floor. Good afternoon, board. Dave Jensen, co-inspector of the City of Clearwater. This is case 05-26 at 1384 Seabreeze. I have one violation for 3-15-02-K-4. It has to do with parking lot surfaces and driveway surfaces. I put in the language for that ordinance in here so you can take a look at it. It's not something we deal with on a regular basis. Basically, owners have to keep driveways, parking lots, clear of obstructions, et cetera, so they can be used for their intended purpose. This property has been an issue on several different fronts. He is currently just over $526,000 in liens against the property, accruing $450 a day. You will recognize the property when I bring it up here. These are the dates of the notices that were sent. This is the property in question. You have heard it before for the motor home being parked towards that, some other things here. Mr. Deskovsky and I have had numerous emails and verbal conversations with each, in-person conversations with each other about the property and the things he's done there, this being one of them, you can see his driveway. Our right-of-way for the city is actually right about in here, so he's only got this much driveway left, and he has blocked the rest of it off with railroad ties and palm trees. He did have numerous conversations as well through emails with our zoning department. One of those subjects at our zoning department was actually the head of zoning. He finally had to inject himself into the conversation with one of our zoning people about the use of the parking lot, because he said he was going to start using it as a patio, and that's one of the reasons he's put these out here. Unfortunately, not only has he blocked it off with the railroad ties, but now the trees, as you'll see here, are starting to die. Some of these had out in the front lawn are dead as well. So this is the rest of his parking area up here, which he has blocked off and is now unusable. This is back on December 4th. You see how overgrown some of this stuff has gotten. There is grass, you'll see in a picture here, that is long and overgrown out from underneath the railroad ties. This is the condition on the 27th of this month. As you can see, these are not being taken care of. They're dying off or dead. This is yesterday as well. This footboard was out in the middle of the yard yesterday. It's since found its way up into the driveway area. This is the overgrowth in the junk that's starting to, or has been accumulating in front of the railroad ties from the street side. More of that junk, dead debris, and everything else obstructing the parking surface. That's the footboard, and you can see the condition of these palms. They're not doing very well. Compliance can be met for the parking lot surfaces with the driveway and parking surface. It must be clear of obstructions, barriers, plants, trees, any other objects that would preclude the use of the parking surface as approved in the original site plan. Requesting compliance on our report 220 of 26, where a fine of $150 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Any questions for Inspector Jensen, board? I don't have any questions on that. I remember this property, though. I do have one question. Based on our experience prior to this, am I correct in thinking that the owner just doesn't care to comply or just wants to do what he wants to do? I'm not trying to read this thing. To say that I've had numerous conversations and emails back and forth with him, and again with our zoning and everyone else. If you remember, when the motorhome was parked there, there were conversations. It was really an in-out vehicle. He did put a plate on it and brought it up to date. However, he left a part there. He said he was going to have a parking surface put down. I told him that he would have to get a permit, but due to where it's at, right on the property line, et cetera, he may not be able to get that permit. Didn't he put pavers down or something like that? Yeah. So the next thing you know, they weren't even actual pavers. They're the three by three or four by four piece that your exterior air conditioner heater sets up. Yeah, the pads. He put those under there, and then he wrapped the bottom of the motorhome in a tarp or some material behind what he'd done there. Everything that he's done on the property, I've tried to warn him ahead of time and told him you're not allowed to do that, or it's just going to cause further issues, and he's just gone ahead and done it. We've had absolutely no luck getting him to bring the property into compliance, and obviously again, he's well over half a million dollars in liens for other violations. So unfortunately, it's just where we are. I've had neighbors complain about the property. That's where this all started at. I have a neighbor across the street that's trying to sell their houses. They've retired and want to move out of the area, and when I've been down there, they've come out and expressed their aggravation, the fact that it looks the way it does. Hopefully, we can give them some affirmative relief today. Board, do you have any questions, any more questions for Inspector Jensen? No. 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. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? First motion carries. Can I get a second? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before February 20th, 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 subsequently. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Second. Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector Jensen. Next case is 3.12 on our agenda. In the case 06-26, find respondents MHH Clearwater 395 Holdings LLC at 395 Coronado Drive in violation of code for prohibited signage, an issue in order with compliance deadline, and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? No. Inspector Burkhart, you have the floor. Good afternoon, board. Stephen Burkhart, site inspector for City of Clearwater. That case 6-26 is in compliance as of today. I would ask the board for declaration of violation. Declaration of violation. 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. All opposed? Motion carries. Next case is 3.13 on our agenda. The case 07-26, find respondents Mary G. Realty, Inc. at 490 Mandalay Avenue in violation of code for sign maintenance, an issue in order with compliance deadline, and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak for that case? No. Inspector Burkhardt, you have the floor. Stephen Burkhardt, sign inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is case 7-26 for 490 Mandalay Avenue. There are two violations. First violation is regarding code section 3-1806A, temporary sign criteria limitations. The other violation is regarding sign maintenance. That's code section 3-1502I. Notice of violation was mailed July 29th, 25th, but certified mail was not signed. So that's why I posted the property on September 4th, 25th, and compliance date was October 6th, 25th. So the first violation regarding temporary signage was about banner signs. So as you see here, a banner sign can be displayed for up to one month per year per parcel. So one sign for up to one month. It's just a temporary sign. It can't be longer than 30 days. And that picture was taken in June 9th last year. And as you see, that's the pictures from September 4th. The sign is still there, the exact same sign. That was in December 6th, 25th. And there's another sign displayed. So there are now two banner signs advertising for that business. You see that's the other sign still there. As of today, all signs have been removed. So there's no banner signs anymore. So cases and compliance for that. The second case is regarding sign maintenance. I'm sorry. The second violation was regarding sign maintenance of the freestanding sign for the plaza. As you see, there's rust and peeling paint on the pole. There's more rust on top of the pole, the sign. So the sign needs to be, the rust needs to be removed and the structure painted. The picture is from today. There's no maintenance being done. It's still rust and peeling paint visible. As you see in the lower part of the sign, still the same situation. I attempted to speak with the property owner. I spoke with the tenant, ClearSky. The manager, Stephen, gave me the number of Nick is his name. He's supposed to be the property owner, responsible for property. I called him. There's no voicemails being set up or anything, no answer. So I just, the only contact I had was through the posting, basically, of the property. So I had no direct contact with the property owner. Compliance for the freestanding sign in need of maintenance can be met by repairing or removing the sign and the sign structure, or repairing or removing. So that would be the option, basically, just to paint it or remove the rust. That would be the ideal solution for that. You can also demolish the sign. So compliance for the banner sign can be met by removing the banner and refrain from re-erecting one until all the criteria and limitations can be abided by. So the banner sign has been removed, so it's in compliance. So I asked for a declaration of violation for that violation. So for the other, for the sign maintenance, it still needs to be painted. Recommendations for the case 0726 is the temporary sign. The violation don't exist anymore, so it's in compliance. It's a declaration of violation. And for the sign maintenance, it still needs to be contained. Requesting compliance on or before February 2826, if the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. I have a question. And even though we're going to give a declaration on the banner signs, is the Mary G. Realty Inc., the owner of the plaza, are they responsible for those banner signs? Yes, sir. Oh, are they? Okay. I didn't know if the business was responsible for them or if they were. No. All the cases, the two cases, they're going against the property owner. There are several tenants. There were previously other tenants who had banners erected, but it's all the same. So if another tenant starts to put banners out, it's the same violation. Okay. But I talk with clear, of course. I talk with individual businesses, but it's still the property owner's responsible. The board, do you have any questions on this one? I do not. Mr. Strickland? Mr. Kinney? Nope. We'll do a declaration on the banner signs, and then we'll do the other one for the sign maintenance. So if someone wants to do that. Regarding the banner signs on this violation, 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. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? That motion carries. All right. Regarding the permanent sign on this case, I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second it. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Second. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before February 28th. If the respondent does not comply with 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? That motion carries. All right. Next case is 3.14 on our agenda. Case 08-26. Fine respondents Nicoletta Pasaltas, Y Building 642, LLC, and Anastasius Anastopoulos at 636 South Gulfview Boulevard in violation of code for sidewalk signs and signage without permits and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Will you come forward, sir? To the podium, sir. Yes. If you would, would you state your name and address to our partner? I'm sorry. I've got a long name. It's on the last one. Anastasius Anastopoulos, and it's 246 Bayside Drive, Clearwater, Florida, 33767. I'm sorry if I chopped up your... Yeah, I don't know if it's a long name or not. Mr. Anastopoulos, do you admit or deny the violation? Yeah, I'm a landlord, but, yeah, my tenant has those signs, yes. You admit it to me? Yeah. Okay. If you'll have a seat right there. Can I get a first motion, please? 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. Inspector Burkhart, you have the floor. All right. Stephen Burkhart, sign inspector for the city of Clearwater. In this case, 08-26 for 636, Goldview Boulevard. Two violations. First violation is regarding Code Section 3-1806A, temporary sign criteria limitations. Second violation is regarding Code Section 4-1002, signage without permits. And so there was one sidewalk sign erected, that's Code Section 3-1804J. The sidewalk sign had no permit, and that's the violation. As of today, the sidewalk sign is not there anymore. I took all the pictures, so it's just a declaration of violation for that one. The other, so the notice of violation has been mailed in July 2nd, 25. There was no certified mail, so I posted the property in August 13th last year. Compliance date was September 12th, 25. So that's the violation regarding the second violation, the banner signs. There are three banner signs at the building for longer, for more than 30 days. As you see here, homemade Italian ice cream, gelato coffee, and that's of May. Banner signs are still there. That was the sidewalk sign. Meanwhile, it's been removed, December. That was today. The signs are all still there. I spoke with the tenant, and he said, that goes back for, that goes back a while, actually, before even I started the case. I started to talk with him about the signage. He said he wants to erect permanent signage, but that costs money, and so I was giving him more time. And at one point, I opened the case because I understand that permanent signage is more expensive than Adana's, but still want to be in compliance with the code. Again, the sidewalk sign is not there anymore. That picture was taken today. Compliance for the sidewalk sign can be met by removing the sign or obtain a permit, but I'm asking for declaration of compliance for the banner sign can be met by removing the banners and refrain from re-erecting one until all the criteria and limitations can be abided by. Do you have any questions for Mr. Burkhardt? No? Mr. Anastopoulos, if you want to come back for a second. So, what do we got going on here? I just thought about, I got, I think, a certified letter last month. So, I was kind of unaware of it, and I spoke with my tenant this week, had him remove the sidewalk sign. I wasn't aware of the multiple sign violation. If you could explain to me what he's allowed, and is it one sign's allowed, is it all three signs aren't allowed? I'm not sure on that, so I could tell them what he has to do, what he has to remove. I would refer that to Inspector Burkhardt. I'll talk to the tenant and make sure he comes in compliance. I wasn't aware of it. So, from a previous case that we had today, about a banner sign, I believe it was 30 days for, and then you have to take it down, and that's one time a year you can do that. Okay. But other than that, you would have to speak with him. So, I'll make sure he comes in compliance. Everything will be, you can have everything done by the 20th. Yes, yes. Okay, all right. Can I get a declaration for the sidewalk signs? Yes. And then we'll address the second point. I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code, as referred to in the affidavit. In this case, for the sidewalk sign, 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 each day. The violation continues to exist. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. That motion carries. And then our next one. Okay. Regarding the banner signs, 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? First motion carries. I have a second. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before January 28th. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of up to $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. Change that from January 28th to February 28th, sir. Is that what I said? Yes, sir. I'll re-give the motion. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before February 28th. Thank you. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of up to $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? Second motion carries. Thank you, sir. I was going to say he would already have been in place. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Our next item is 3.15 on our agenda, which has been continued to February. So, our next one is 3.16, case 10-26. Fine respondents, True North property owner, LLC, at 3404 Brigadoon Drive in violation of code for exterior surfaces. An issue in order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that? If you'll come forward, sir, to the podium. How you doing? Will you state your name and address to our clerk for the record? It's Justin McCrillis, 4721 3rd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, 33713. Mr. McCrillis. McCrillis, M-C-C-R-I-L-L-I-S. Thank you. Mr. McCrillis, do you admit or deny the violation? Admit. Do you admit it? All right. If you'll have a seat there. Can I have a first motion, please? I move to find the respondent violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? First motion carries. Inspector Daniels, do you have that? Good afternoon, board. Inspector Daniels, City of Clearwater Code, Inspector. I'm bringing to you 3404 Brigadoon Drive, case number 10-26. It's one violation at this property. Code Section 3-1502.B for exterior surfaces. Notice of violation was sent out on April 16, 2025, with a compliance date of May 21, 2025, and certified mail was received on 428-25. This is what's going on at the property. The sider needs to be replaced, and that was on 415. That was on 1201. And down a little lower now, you got a piece falling off now. And this was this morning. Compliance can be met for exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structures and decorative elements of any building walls and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose materials, and fading appealing paint, requesting compliance on or before March 1, 2026. If not, a fine of $150 per day per violation if compliance is not met. All right. Do you think you can get this all done by the 1st of March? Yeah. We definitely should be able to. I mean, I apologize. I don't know what happened to the letter. I found out this just recently. So I have a vendor out there. I'm going to go out there right after I'm done. The only issue that I would see is that just if they start pulling that stuff off, if there's more on the inside, but I can keep him updated. Yeah, I was going to say, keep your inspector updated if you do pull some of that. March 1 shouldn't be a problem. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Yeah, thank you. Can I have a second motion, please? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before March 1, 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? Second. Motion carries. All right. Next case is 3.17 on our agenda, case 11-26. Find respondents Hannah Bacara and Medea Ibrahim at 4004 Brigadoon Circle in violation of code for fences and walls and exterior surfaces and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine of compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that one? He'll come forward, sir. Good afternoon. If you'll state your name and address for the record, please. My name is Peter Daniel, and he represented my dad and my mom, Hannah Bacara and Medea Ibrahim. Go ahead. My address or this address? Your address. 7023 Mistletoe Court, New Bridge, Florida 345-653. Hi. Do you admit or deny the violations today? Admit them? Yes? Okay. If you'll have a seat right over there, we'll get back to you in just a bit. Can I have a first motion, please? I'm moved 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. Good afternoon. Inspector Daniels, City of Clearwater Code, Inspector. This is for address 4004, Brigadoon Drive, case number 11-26. There's two violations at this property. Code section 3-1502.B for exterior surfaces. Code section 3-808 for fence maintenance. The notice was sent out on April 18th, 2025 with a compliance date of May 21st, 2025. Certified mail was received on May 6th, 2025. There you got a little wood. A little damage to the wood. The wood was replaced, touched up, but never repainted. Got some rotting wood down here. This was the fence, but they moved the fence. They moved this piece of fence. This is more of the fence that's broken. This was on 12-4. The wood's still missing. Part of the fence is gone, but still the rotted wood is there and starting to get a little surface mildew. The wood is still the same in the back. Fence, still the same. As of this morning, wood's still missing, rotten wood, depainted, and the fence is still in the same condition. Compliance can be met for the exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structure and decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose materials, and fading of peeling paint. Compliance can be met for fence maintenance by replacing any rotten or broken boards, making sure all posts or footers are solid, and make sure that the fence is in a vertical position, not sagging or leaning more than 10 degrees from vertical. We are sitting requesting compliance on or before March 1st, 2026, or a fine of $150 per day per violation if compliance is not met. All right. Thank you, sir. You want to come back up, sir? Are you able to be able to get this stuff taken care of by March 1st? I'll definitely do my best. It's just me doing everything because my dad is just not doing well right now, and my mom by herself. So I would please ask for like 30 more days if that's okay for the court. But I would definitely try to do it by March 1st. Yeah, because this, they were, you guys were notified back in last April. I know. My dad had a stroke in April, and it's been a tough time for us because he's been hospitalized for more than two months, and we were just with him doing that. I'm sorry to hear that about your father. I hope he's doing better. Thank you. Board, do you have any questions for the room? No? I do not. Do you have any, Board, do we have any problem with extending it out? Does the city, do you have any problems extending it out 30 days to give them time? Board, does that sound okay to you guys? So instead of 3-1, it would be 4-1? Yeah, I'd say 4-1, April 1st. So, okay, we're going to extend it out until April 1st for you, and let's try to get this stuff taken care of. Absolutely. Thank you, sir. Your parents will love you for it. Thank you. It does. Thank you, sir. All right. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before April 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? Second. Motion carries. All right. Next case is 3.18 on our agenda, case number 12-25. Five fine respondents, Michael Carantanis at 123 North Glenwood Avenue in violation of code for permits and issue an order of 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. Good afternoon, code board. I'm Inspector Cat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is for case 12-26 at 123 Glenwood Avenue. You have one violation on this property for permits required. Section 4-203.a.1. No person shall commence any construction, demolition, modification, or ratification of a building or structure without first obtaining a permit. This is specifically permit for masonry work done on the front of the property. Before I go into the whole thing, I did speak with the proprietor, Michael, this morning. He is in Colton, New Hampshire. He advised me that he has worked on getting a GC hire to pull a permit. He did request a 60-day rather than a 30. I have no objection to that if you want to just see everything real quickly, but we are now in communication as of this morning. So the notice of violations were sent, first one June 27th of 2025, and the final August 7th of 2025. First, we had three different compliance dates, and certified mail was signed on August 20th of 2025. And this is the, just in reference for where the property is, it's just south of Drew Street and east of Highland Avenue. It is the corner house right there. This is a Google photo image from 2019, and this was my inspection picture, and you can see where the masonry worked. It was basically AC that was, that was removed from the wall, and they filled it in. So it's nothing too complicated. However, he does have more issues on the property, so he just wants to get it all encompassed with this, with everything at once, which is why he was requesting more time. And compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing the permit six months from issuance. So originally I was recommending, oh, I did change it, I'm sorry, excuse me. So I am recommending to be in agreeance with him that a permit is obtained by March 28th of 2026 and completion of a 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. Did you, did you want another 30 days out from this March 28th? No, I already, yeah, that's the agree. Yes, originally I would have done naturally 30 days, but. And you're in contact with him, so everything's going to start flowing. Hopefully, but in case it doesn't, that's why I still wanted to present it. Okay. Can I get a first motion? 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? First motion carries. Can I have a second motion? I move to enter an order requiring a respondent to correct the violations on or before March 28th, 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. 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. 3.19 on our agenda is continued until April 22nd. 3.20 is also continued to March 25th. The next up is 3.21 on our agenda. Case 15-26. Find respondents, Wesson Road Investments, Columbus LLC at 705 Vine Avenue in violation for code permits and issue an order with 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. Hello again, Code Board. Inspector Cat Reese for the City of Clearwater. This is for 705 Vine Avenue, case number 15-26. We have one violation here for permits required, specifically a permit for the interior remodel, which was to include plumbing on the property. The first notice of violation was sent April 16th of 2025 and the final on May 30th of 2025. The first compliance date was May 6th of 2025 with the final of June 20th of 2025. Certified mail was signed on April 21st, 2025. I also went on this property when the contractors were on site, so I did issue a stop work order on the property. Okay, so in reference to location, this is going to be just east of North Myrtle Avenue, south of Seminole Street. And that was my stop work order that was given to the contractor on site. This is what the property looked like when I approached the property. So clearly there's a lot of work going on inside. Let's put a lot of work. It's a neon sign. So it's a lot of drywall. You know, it's not too much. I know it looks like a lot more than it really is, but mainly it was the drywall and the bathroom that's being done and new plumbing connections in the bathroom. So that is why the plumbing will be required as well. Drywall all the way up to the ceiling and new framing on the doors there. So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit six months from issuance date. I have not had any communication from the property owner. Well, in June 18th of 2025, I did speak with Randall, who was not happy to speak with me. He disconnected our phone call, and I have not heard from him since, so I don't foresee. I'm actually surprised they let you in to take pictures. Yeah, he did. Most of the time contractors are not wanting to put up a fight. And I understand that they're just doing a job, and they, you know, they know that's what they're there to do. I was real surprised to see pictures, you know. And they know better. So I am requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before February 28, 2026, and completion of permit six months from the issuance date of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. Do you have any questions, board? Can I get a first motion? 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. All opposed? First motion carries. Can I have a second motion, please? I move to enter an order requiring a respondent to correct the violations on or before February 28. 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? Second motion carries. All right, next case is 3-2-2 on our agenda. Case 16-26, fine response, Anita. This is Jardins at 1387 Mission Hills Boulevard, Unit 39B, in violation of code for permits and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Ma'am, would you come forward to the podium, please? If we could just have a correction, the violation is actually a housing violation, not for permits. I'm not sure. Can you state your name and address for the record, please? Anita Desjardins, 1387 Mission Hills Boulevard, Clearwater. Mr. Jardins, do you admit or deny the violation? You admit it? Okay, if you'll have a seat right there, we'll hear from the city and then we'll get back to you. Okay. Thank you so much. Inspector Reese, you have the floor. Hello again, board. This is Inspector Cat Reese, case number 16-26. This is 41387 Mission Hills Boulevard, Unit 39B, as in Bravo. We have one violation here. It is a housing violation under the International Property Maintenance Code, Section 702.1. A safe, continuous path of travel shall be provided from any point in a building or structure to the public way. We have the first notice of violation that was given from our previous inspector, July 29th of 2024. My final notice was sent July 31st of 2025. She has had multiple compliance dates. These are just the ones that are matching with the notice of violations. Certified mail was signed on August 8th of 2024. So this is going to be the condos that are south of 590, just right where Johnny's Italian restaurant is, just to give you reference. Straight down is the whole neighborhood there. This is the approach to Ms. Anita's condo, just to give you more reference. This is her front door. So this came in from the previous inspector who did go out there with police and a bunch of different entities to try to assist Ms. Anita. It was in reference to emergency services that could not really gain access to her home. So that was the state on the initial inspection of what it appeared. That is the front door. It does not swing open all the way, which is why we are here today. So I will breeze through these quickly to just, you know, afford her to not have her whole place shown. But compliance can be met by generating a safe, continuous path of travel to be provided from any point in a building or structure to the public way. So more specifically, the door, the front door, because it opens in work, that has to have a clear opening. That is what we are focused on here today. There are other cases with the HOA that are being taken to court for the remainder of it. So I don't, excuse my, that's probably why you had permits, Nicole. It's my fault. I am sorry. So this is in reference to the housing violation for a means of egress. We request some compliance by generating a clear path of egress and or travel on or before February 27, 2026 and a re-inspection with myself be completed on or before February 27, 2026. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. Lord, do you have any questions for me? It sounds like your, I don't know if it's your only concern, but your main concern for compliance is that the front door open fully. Right. Anything else is beyond that, is that correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Jonas, would you like to come back up, please? Hello. You think you can get your front door and everything all cleaned out, hon? Everything. I'll get everything. That's a, if a file would break out, hon, you'd be, huh. I know. I got depressed. I understand. That happens. I completely get it, and we're not here to try to shame you or anything like that. We just want you to be safe, and you'll get that all cleaned out for us. I will. All right. For you, too. We don't want to see anything happen to you. All right? Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. Can I get a first motion, please? I'm going to define the 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. And you keep in contact with her, and she'll take care of you. Thank you so much today. Can I have a second, please? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before February 27, 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. Aye. All opposed? Second motion carries. All right. Our next case, 3.23, has been withdrawn. 3.24 on our agenda, case number 18-26, fine respondents, Wolf Empire, LLC, at 1738 North Fort Harrison 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? Would you come forward, sir? Did I say the wrong? No, no. No, no, I tried to confirm if this was his. Will you state your name and address for that record, please? Alan Blythe, 821 Riverview Lane, Tarpon Springs. Mr. Blythe, do you admit? I'm sorry, my last name? Blythe, B-L-Y-T-H-E. Mr. Blythe, do you admit or deny the violations today? I don't know what the violations are. Okay. That would be a denial. That would be a denial? I deny it. Okay. Well, have a seat right there, and the city's going to present what they have, and then we'll call you back up. Okay, sir? Okay. All right. Inspector Reese, you have the floor. Hey, I'm Inspector Cat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is for Case 18-26 at 1738 North Fort Harrison Avenue. We have one violation here for permits required, specifically for the interior remodel done on the property. We had three notice of violations that were sent, March 18, 2025 being the first, the final on April 30, 2025, three separate compliance dates. I did have certified mail signed on March 27, 2025, and I'm sure you all know where North Fort Harris it is, but there you go. So just to give you, I did pull up a Zillow posting of what the property used to look like inside. As you can see from the entrance, it does have drop ceilings, a wall here with the windows, more drop ceilings throughout the entire property. Just to give you, we're more focused on the front of the property, which would be this area here and throughout this area here. And then sort of go back to my slide. Okay. So as of today, there is no permit on file. I just wanted to give reference for that. This is the property upon my inspection. As you can see that there's a truss there. There's no more drop ceilings. There's electric that's been added to the ceiling. There's been no permits for any of this work. It's just more pictures. It's very difficult with the reflections, so I apologize for that. Compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit. The city is requesting compliance by obtaining a permit honored before February 28, 2026, and the completion of said permit six months from issuance of the permit. Did you have to do a stop work order on this one, too, also? No, I did not because the work was already done, so I just went ahead and sent the notice of violations out. So for this property, I have been in contact with him, but not in reference to this particular property. And the LLC is not under the same name as this other property, so that's why I asked him today, but I got the numerics wrong when I asked him, so that's why he didn't confirm at that time. Mr. Blunt, would you come back up, sir? Looks like they've got some work with no permits. Okay. I purchased the property. The only thing we have done to the property is scrape the windows clean, paint the inside, and clean up the outside and paint the outside. We, you know, I've been done, whenever I spoke to the city, whenever I guess this first came up, I thought they had just said, okay, because I didn't do anything to the building. When I bought it, it was like this. When did you purchase it? What date? Three? 2023, 2024. I don't know exactly. We purchased it because we owned the property adjacent to it, and it came up for a sale, and I'm part of the purchase. And that's the property. It had tenants in it. It had people living there whenever I purchased it. And, of course, it wasn't a zoned residential, so I got rid of them. But other than that, all I've done is scrape the windows clean, cleaned up the property. It looked really bad outside. So we fixed it up and painted it, and I didn't think I needed the permit to paint and clean up the property and scrape windows. Inspector Reese, do you know when those pictures were taken on Zillow? Does it have a date of anything? Because this is going to be really hard to say those were after 2023. Well, much like any violation in reference to permits, violations do not go with the property owner. It goes with the property. So even if he did buy the property and it was not permitted and we do come into light of the said violation, he is ultimately responsible for that. But to answer your question, this Zillow posting was – let's see if we can find it. I was just curious to, you know, not saying that you were not telling the truth, but I was just curious to try to – I'm not a positive 100% of that. I'm just trying to figure out the timeline, you know. But like she said, it doesn't matter anyways. The violation is with the property, not with the purchaser. There's a date, 2020-15. It looks like it would have been that date for the price history, correct. 15. Yeah, very well could have all been done. Well, those are sale dates, though, so I don't know if those apply to the pictures. Again, there were people that had no way to get compliance to be a residential dwelling, and it's been vacant ever since then. Did you have a title search, sir, when you purchased? Yes. And the fines didn't come up from the city? I don't think there is fines yet on this place, is there? Right. Yeah, we haven't just made a roof. We wouldn't have had that if the purchase – we're just now bringing the case, so we just now became aware of it. We do normally consider this to be kind of a private issue when sellers, as you know, when sellers sell property, there's disclosures that they're supposed to make. And so if they did work without a permit or something like that, then they're supposed to disclose that to their buyers. If they fail to do that, that's really a civil matter between those two parties. From the city's perspective, we just need to make sure that, you know, the work is safe and code compliant. I can't really speak for the building department exactly in terms of what they would want to see here, but I'm sure, you know, since the work's already completed, if we could – you know, if a contractor can, you know, give us an affidavit or something like that to say that it's up to code, then it should be pretty straightforward getting the permit. I don't want to speak to it too much. I just hate to, you know, have Mr. Blythier, you know, him hung out to dry over somebody, you know, something that he didn't do, you know, so that's right. Is there – Dana, could you come up, sir? Can I ask you a couple questions? Just so we can figure out what, like, the building inspector – Can you give us some insight on this – or, like, some, like, guidance on this property on what he would need as far as, you know, what the building – like, the counselor said, what the – like, a contractor, can he come in and inspect it and sign off on it? And so how would this work? Well, it would – it seems to be a simple, I guess, a demo permit where the ceiling was taken out. Probably electrical was capped off. Looks like there was some drywall work that was done on some framing that was – we'll call it the possible attic space where that vaulted ceiling is. So it would pretty much be an electrical final, building final. We'd have to verify the screw pattern of the drywall. Possible wall taken down. See, that's what I'm trying not to – I mean, you know, this is a tough one. Well, it's – Because I don't think that he should be, you know – Right. Well, it is – In libel for all this. I mean, if it didn't – if there was no disclosure to him at – you know, how's he supposed to know? Well, he may have a – I mean, that's why I'm trying to find a middle ground here. Right. That's why I brought you up, Dana, to see if there was some sort of – you know. Well, the data that I see is that the violation goes with the property, not necessarily the owner. So if he purchased a property that wasn't disclosed, then maybe he's got some sort of cause of action against the seller. That's in their world. Yeah. But it would seem if the work was unpermitted and a permit is required, then somebody's got to go in and – somebody qualified to go in and look at it, figure out what was done for the permit, get the inspection, sign it off. And that – Dana, correct me if I'm wrong, Kat, but that would – if that would seem to be a typical course of action. Yes. It's going to be an after-the-fact permit regardless. Just to keep in mind, most of the work I'm going to bring here, people – for example, next month, all of Brigadoon, these residents, with their patio closures that were built 20 years ago, so everyone's going to have that same story. So whatever decision you make, I'm just going to suggest to keep it, you know, clear across the board for everybody because that's going to be most of my cases coming forward. And I do have two more cases for Mr. Blight's two separate other properties that are here today to be met as well for also work done without a permit. Well, we'll just kind of address them one at a time. And I do – I just – I want to be clear that we – you know, he may have remedies, as you were saying. I mean, we don't – we're not going to – we can't give him legal advice on what to pursue. But, you know, just because someone buys something and it's not exactly what they thought, you know, there's real estate agents involved in that, there's title companies, there's – you know, those are professionals that have professional standards where there's potential remedies available there. There – obviously the seller has certain duties to disclose things. So if this situation ends up being a significant financial burden for him, I would encourage you to talk to a lawyer and consult them with what your options are. From the city's perspective, it's pretty cut and dry that there's work done. If people could simply sell the property and then escape liability like that, then it would encourage people to kind of do some shell game transfers and avoid permitting requirements. So that's why we – we try to be as fair and as reasonable with people as we can, understanding that they may have just bought a problem that they didn't know about. And the way that we can do that is usually we can give them more time to sort it out. With the after-the-fact permits, sometimes we'll look at letters from private contractors. If an engineer puts a seal on a letter and says it complies with the building code or, you know, the building official has discretion to accept documentation like that, you know, but at the end of the day that's kind of all we're looking for is that code compliance element. And I'm just curious, how did this come up now? This was reported from one of the general code officers. So they usually – they typically, if they see something was done, they will report it to me. That is their specific area. I cover half of Clearwater by myself, so they're just more aware of what's going on in their area so that they give me those violations. So, board, do we have any recommendations on this? I mean, it's – Mr. Blythe, it's pretty cut and dry. I mean, it's like council said, that either you're going to have to go back and, you know, civilly or something maybe with the people you bought off of for non-disclosure of all this. But it's basically, you know, our hands are tied as far as – So the remedy is what? The remedy would be maybe to call in, like council said, a general contractor or an engineer and get them to stamp off on it and then bring it to Dana at the building department and say here, you know, and see if he accepts that or, you know – Look, Dana. Dana, I'm sorry. The process would be the same as if the work was not done. Just – You have to get a contractor. You have to apply for a permit. You have to get the permit issued. And inspections must pass. Yeah. So architect may be able to sign off on it. We – the city would be open to more time if the board would like because it appears that the property owner didn't know that the work was actually done. I mean, even by the Zillow and, you know, his recollection of when he bought it, I mean, it kind of says that he didn't have any idea. So what was your recommendations on this? I requested a compliance date of February 28, 2026. We could keep it at that, and like Mr. Simpson advised before, my biggest thing is if you stay in communication with me, I'm always going to work with you. Once that communication stops, I cannot be an acting property manager for all my cases. I just move on with my process, and I'd like that to continue. If he keeps in contact with me, I see there's progress being made to obtain a permit. I have no problem not filing the noncompliance affidavit. Well, this is under LLC. I've been in contact with her on adjacent property, and I was in compliance. I thought I came and submitted plans to the city and waited for about a month, didn't hear anything, so I went back and they said these plans. Like, I just want to stay to this property, that will be up next. I would never dodge more. No, no, we're not saying that. I didn't get any notice on this. I thought when I went down. Sir, can you speak in the mic? When I went back downtown to talk about this, I said, look, I painted the place and scraped the windows. That's pretty much the extent of what I've done there. I've cleaned up the exterior, and it's got an easement through it. I put pylons back out there. They were there before, but they were knocked down. They've been knocked down three times since I've owned the property just from the traffic going through there. So I wouldn't try to avoid her or do anything to not be able to hide. We're just trying to figure out a way that's, you know, the least destructive for you as far as, you know, and I don't think there's a – just like our building code guy said that, you know, it's just going to have to go through the process, I guess. So, you know, I – Well, on a separate matter, it took me a really long time to find an engineer who was willing to take on the little project that I had to do for this other thing. Maybe you can get him to come over. I'll get him on it. I mean, he knows somebody who can help me as far as a contractor. Okay. He's the engineer that I hired us. You know, he was covered up with everything that's happened here in the past, you know, couple years. Okay. All right. Well, we're going to go ahead and rule on this case then. But, you know, like I said, our hands are going to be tied on this one. You take a turn. Okay. First, can I get a first motion on this, 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? First motion passes. Can I have a second motion? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before February 28, 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? Keep in contact with Mr. Blythe. Keep in contact with her. And, you know, she holds the key to, you know, keeping you out of here. All right, our next item is 3.25 has been withdrawn. Our next case is 3.26, fine respondents Troy Allen and Mary Blythe at 413 Pleasant Street in violation of code for permission issue in order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Mr. Blythe, would you approach the podium, please? Do you admit or deny these violations, sir? I admit this violation. You admit these? Okay. 413 Pleasant Street. 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. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? First motion carries. Inspector Reese, you have it. Hello, vote board. This is Kat Reese, inspector for the city of Clearwater for case number 20-26 at 413 Pleasant Street. This is for one violation for permits required, specifically for the front deck that was constructed on the property. We have the first notice of violation that was sent out March 12th of 2025 and the final on August 1st of 2025 with three separate compliance dates, two certified mail return receipts, first on March 27th, 2025 and August 12th of 2025. This is going to be adjacent to the property that we just covered, and this is the property, this is a Google image on March 20th of 23, and that was the front porch at the time, and this is the front porch as it currently stands now. I did speak with Mr. Blythe in reference to his property, and he advised me that he was having a hard time getting an engineer to sign off on this, that it more than likely would have to be removed, and then I had personally not heard from Mr. Blythe after that second conversation that we had had. So I did go ahead and move forward with my case, and then I was speaking through the ring for the notice of hearing that I placed, and with him and I had a conversation via the ring, and he advised me he was having a hard time with the, you know, getting an engineer. He has since done so. There is a permit that was pulled. However, it's still in review, and just before Code Board, I did speak with a planning, and there is going to be a zoning issue here. So it is going to take a little more work for Mr. Blythe to get this permitted, to get an active permit, because it is a non-conforming property. So I did suggest that he come over to our building to meet with planning and zoning to see about getting an FLD submitted. But again, just like the other one, I would like to keep the compliance date the same, and I will work with Mr. Blythe as long as communication is open. Excuse me. Oh, go ahead. Getting a what issued? FLD? FLD, yes. What is that? I don't want to speak too much for planning, but it is basically flexibility to allow him to keep the porch, because it has expanded, which then takes it out of the non-conformity. Sorry, I just didn't know what that was. Any questions for Inspector Lane? No, I might have one for the owner. Okay, so then I will be asking for a compliance date to obtain a permit on or before February 28th, 2026, and completion of permit six months from issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. And again, I will work with them if communication stays open. And you said he has the permits been filed, right? It has been filed, so he just has to come back. It's still under review. Right. Okay. You're good? Yeah. Mr. Blythe, would you come up? So the 28th and then after that six months for the permit, is it? Yeah, that's good, yeah? Okay. All right, that's all we want. Thank you, sir. Can I get a second motion, please? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before February 28th, 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? Second motion carried. All right. Next case is 3.27 on our agenda has been withdrawn, and I believe that is all of the new business cases. And now we will go to old business items, except the affidavits of compliance listed for 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7. Can I get an affidavit? I move to accept the affidavits of compliance as listed. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Next is 4.2 on our agenda, case 93-25, except the affidavit of noncompliance for respondent, Juan Ariel Silva at 904 Vine Avenue for residential rental business tax receipt. Is anyone here to speak on that? Inspector Dipson. Good afternoon, board. Sarah Green, interim code manager. They have not applied for or obtained a BTR as of this morning. Okay. I'm sorry, they have not what? For the business. They haven't applied for. Okay. So let's find him. So let's go ahead. Ready? Yep. I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that imposes fines. In states, if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Next is 4.3 on our agenda, case 115-28, except the affidavit of noncompliance for respondents Mary and George Ackerman at 832 Narcissus Avenue for fences and walls. Mr. Chair, all of the affidavits, they are sworn statements that the properties are in violation. So unless there's someone from the other side here to object, I think you can just accept the affidavit. All right. I mean, unless you want to hear from the inspector. I don't know. I always did this because I know these guys like to sit out and hang out for a little longer. Oh, you guys. They're welcome to come. We're doing this for you guys, you know, so let's go back to the office. But, yeah. Okay. That's all right. That's fine. So, yeah, let me get a – can I get a motion? Somebody else read. That's noncompliance, right? Yes. I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that imposes fines in states. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. Motion carries. Next case, 4.4. On our agenda, case 122-25, accept the affidavits of noncompliance. The respondent, William Joseph Reese, at 1390 South Hillcrest Avenue for residential rental business. Tax or speak. Is there anyone here to speak on that? No? Can I have a – I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states that fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed. The city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next is 4.5 on our agenda, case 128-25, accept the affidavits of noncompliance for respondents, Caroli Windows and Doors, LLC, at 1165 Eldridge Street for permits. Is there anyone here to speak on that? Yes. Will you come to the podium, sir, and state your name and address to the clerk for our records? My name is Clint Morrell. I'm an attorney with Becker and Poliakoff. Our mailing address, new to the firm, so I'm going to have to read it off of this card, is 1511 Northwest Shore Boulevard, Suite 1000. That's over in Tampa, zip code 33607. So we are here for a noncompliance for Caroli Windows and Doors, LLC. Are they refuting this or – No, we're not refuting that we haven't obtained a permit in accordance with the prior order. I'm here to explain what's happened since then. We'll hear from the state – or from the city first, and then we'll come back to you. Hello, Ms. Inspector Cat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is going to be for 1165 Eldridge Street. Let me go ahead and pull that up for you. So just to give you – I'll run through the pictures of – to give you some memory of what this was. This was the fence that was brought before the board and the changes that were made there. I have gone there a few times to see if there was any progress, and there has been no progress or communication. This is as of today. There has been no change to any of the fences on any side. Go ahead. Thank you very much. So, Corolli, after the prior hearing, there was an incident where this gate sustained damage from a vendor that was on property. Apparently, there was a back-and-forth. They've now been in agreement to pay. I think it's been repaired. The company thought that when it retained the contractor to repair the gate, that that contractor would be willing to submit for the after-the-fact permit for the fence. Apparently, those contractors balked, did not want to do that. Corolli, its principals decided that they would apply for the permit themselves. I actually spoke with Ms. Reese earlier, and she advised me that that's not possible because it's a commercial property. So, I relayed that information as I've been sitting here to my clients, and they've indicated that they've set up some more meetings with additional contractors to try and submit for the permit. So, we acknowledge that it's not happened timely. I apologize for that. We're here to request leniency and some additional time to bring in compliance. I don't think it's been alleged that there's a safety issue, and the compliance deadline, I believe, is in April. So, hopefully, it's still something that's feasible. So, we would request some additional time to be able to apply for the permit. Thank you. We've already ruled on this, correct? I mean, in a previous... Yes. I mean, this here on a... I mean, this is my position. On behalf of the city staff, I may want to consult the board council as well. But, in my view, this, you know, the question is whether or not they were in compliance on the deadline that was already imposed. Now, we have had cases where accepting that noncompliance affidavit was postponed, but that would not affect the order that's already in place. So, if it came back next month and it was still in violation and you accepted it at that time, the fines would go back to the original order. I mean, I'll defer to your... We already found this in violation, this case. Yes. From a procedural standpoint, yes. And then, in terms of whether or not you have other options, I would defer to your attorney to explain those to you. I mean, I think it's... I agree. Yeah. At this point, it's accepting or not accepting the affidavit. Yeah. Of noncompliance, if you subsequently accept it, the fine runs from the date of noncompliance. Yeah. So, I mean, that's up to the board. And then it's three months after the order is signed. Right. Correct? Not from that original. It's from when the date of you accept the noncompliance. Okay. So, there's going to be three months there before anything really kicks in. Correct? No, no, no, no. It's from... If you accept it today, then it's from the date that you've accepted the noncompliance. It would be today. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that's what he said. That's what he said. Yeah. Okay. So, that gives you to April. Yeah. So... February and March, April. Somebody read. Okay. I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you, sir. We're going to get a copy of that over. Yes. Yep. Next is a nuisance abatement lien filing. 6.1 has been withdrawn. 6.2 on our agenda, case number 35-26, accepted as a nuisance abatement lien for respondents Good Shepherd Boulevard LLC at 1746 Drew 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 Kassman, you have the floor. All right. Give it a sec. All right. Good afternoon again, Board. Daniel Kassman, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is case number 35-26 for 1746 Drew Street. This is a nuisance abatement, but there might be a bit of a change at the end. We'll go through it there. There's one violation for Code Section 3-1503B6 for inoperative vehicle. This is the dates of notice of violation was set with the compliance date and the affidavit of posting. This is 1746 Drew Street. It was brought to my attention by a fellow inspector. This is a little mini shopping mall, three storefronts. This truck was, this little food trailer was part of the issue. We'll see more photos of it. It still is considered a vehicle. It has no license plate on it, but it is also hardwired into the ground. It has plumbing into the ground and it has electric into the ground. You'll see later on what we're going to ask for while we're asking for it. We can't exactly tow it in that state, but on the rear of the property, you see a white pickup truck there and behind it is a big black box truck. The back of the pickup truck is full of motorcycles and four-wheelers and bicycles. Again, not really towable in that state. It has no license plate on it. In addition, the box truck at the time didn't have a current tag, but also something that we're not really able to tow and it was full of materials and a little bit beyond what we usually deal with. I did post the property after sending a courtesy letter, trying to get in touch with the owner. Nobody called me back. That day, the white truck was in the same state. The black truck still had an expired tag and the trailer still had no license plate on it. I went back after the plant state. This vehicle had no license plate on it still. The truck had no license plate, but the black box truck did have a current tag on it now, so that one was better. This was this morning. This vehicle still has no license plate on it. It's still hardwired into the ground, both plumbing and electric, and the white pickup truck still has a bunch of motorcycles, four-wheelers on it, and still has no license plate. I mean, the big truck was gone, though. No, that truck actually is just backed up. It's still there. It's taken care of. They have another box truck there that has slowly got tires deflating, so it's... It's probably going to end up being an operative soon, but it's the same issue we're running to, of being a bit beyond our normal towing capabilities. So, compliance may have been up for an operative vehicle by displaying license plate with current tag on every vehicle, slash ensuring that all vehicles are physically operable, or by removing inoperative vehicles from the premises. And I'm requesting compliance on it before February 14th, 2026, or a fine of $150 per day for violation for each day. The violation continues to exist. And I have a question. What about the fact that it's hardwired in and hooked to plumbing? That's why we're kind of asking for liens in this case, because I don't have the ability to really tow anything off that property. Right. If anybody's got any questions about that, I'll defer to management or Jared. Wouldn't they have to get a permit for that, though? Good afternoon, Board. Sarah Green, interim code manager. Those cases will be forthcoming in the future. This is just a P&U that could be brought sooner. You found that afterwards. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I don't have any questions. I know that that food truck's not. I really want to cause a bigger trouble with trying to yank that thing or trying to do some amateur electric or plumbing work. That stuff hasn't been permitted. I really want to put hands on it. Are they? Yeah, really. Just to sort off the subject a little bit for just a second. I've noticed so many food trucks nowadays since, like, the pandemic. Have the city, like, taken into consideration any more or any new laws or ordinances regarding all the trucks that have popped up? Food trucks are a little bit of a sticky situation. They are preemptively enforced by the state statute, so we cannot do any ordinances that would preclude what the state says. So we have to kind of think about what they're doing, where they're parked, how they're parked. I just wonder, since so many have been popped up over the last two or three years, you know, we see them everywhere now. So I'm sorry for getting off. It's an interesting situation. Board, do we have any questions for Inspector Cashman? Just a comment that normally this reads five days. 2-14 would be 17 days from now. So a motion entering an order would be, like, with 17 days. Yeah, just change that. All right. Shall we? Shall we? All right. I move to enter an order of finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within 17 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, maintain the 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 settle such lien. Second. All on. Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt you guys, but I'm not asking to abate, I'm asking for liens on the respondent. I know it is a P&U, but they want to interrupt you. Oh. We can amend it. So will we just go to an affidavit of noncompliance? No, these are, this is kind of a new request they're asking as a condition, but we don't really have a set order. I'm sorry? Or a motion. So they're asking in lieu of... Nuisance abatement? Business abatement, a fine. Okay. Instead of the city going out and cleaning it up, do you want to start a fine? Okay. Okay. So we would... We just ask for your standard motions, your standard first and second motions. First and second? Oh, okay. All right. Because that's how we're going to handle these nuisance abatements from now on? Well, so we've had some conversations. I mean, I think that they're from an administrative side with the way that our content management system is called a CELA, and there's a lot of things that are sort of automated when we input data in. And for these kinds of violations, they're set up as P and U cases based on the code sections. But, you know, we don't want to go abate everything all the time. No, no, no. It can really complicate things, and obviously people have constitutional rights and things that we have to, you know, be very aware of. And so we're asking not for the abatement here, as you saw from the circumstances. This is not something that we want to go and do that for. But we're looking at whether there's some other way that we can bring these. If we're not going to seek abatement, that we can bring them in the standard form. But here, like I said, there's, they are nuisance code sections, but we're not asking for the nuisance abatement. I apologize for the confusion. No, no. Hopefully. So some in this section will be abatements, and some of them will be possibly fined. There could be some cases that we bring that we want the option of abatement, but we want the fine to run until we exercise the option of abatement. There could be some where we don't want the option of abatement at all because it's too messy or unclear. Okay. You know, there's a variety of things that we would pursue. We try to be very clear with you in terms of what we're asking for your authorization to do. Yep. And in cases like this, we'll just use our first and second motions, the violations. That's what, that's my request, unless Mr. Salzman has an objection to that. No, I think that's the way we have to do it until it's cleared up. Okay. All right. Thank you. We'll work on it. Let's have a first motion. 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? First motion carries. Do you have a second motion? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before February 14th. 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. First, if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized for a close collector to settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Second. Motion carries. All right. Next up is 6.3 on our agenda case 36-26. Accept the nuisance abatement leave. The respondent is Andrew Schneitler at 2079 Loma Linda Way for lock clearing and issue an order with a compliance deadline to authorize the city to mitigate the violation if the compliance is not met. Inspector Caspin, you have the floor. This one is just going to be a normal one. Nothing new. An abatement. Yeah. Normal abatement. Thank you, Lord. Well, that was the first one that we'd ever had that was a fine, or since I've been sent here, you know, in the abatement. No, those are new. I got confused when I seen your recommendation come up. This is usually not. It's just about the circumstances of trying to rip something out of the ground versus a normal truck. Yeah, I hear you. I get it. Daniel Kasman, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is 2079 Loma Linda Way, case number 36-26. It's a nuisance abatement. There's one violation here for Code Section 3-1503-B7-B8-B10 for lot clearing. This is the dates announced the violation was sent with the compliance date and the affidavit of posting. This is 2079 Loma Linda Way. This came as a complaint from the Housing Association of Valencia Park. The property is not being maintained. There's trash and debris, high grass, and the pine tree or whatever that evergreen tree is up front is also overgrown to the right-of-way. It needs to be lifted a little bit. And there's some cinder blocks and some other trash and debris in the yard. Now, this was after the compliance date. It looks like somebody took the notice, but nothing's been done to the property. Abated the notice. Then I went down this morning, and still nothing's been done. They took your stick this time. Oh, yeah, I guess they did. So, same state. So, compliance met for lock clearing by mowing the lawn and edging the curb and sidewalk, cutting back any greenery, blocking the use of the sidewalk so there's at least an eight-foot vertical clearance above the sidewalk, and request a compliance on it before five days from the date the board running is ordered. All right. Any questions? All right. Can I get an abatement? 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 costs, which will become a lien on the property. If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. Motion carries. Thank you, Lord. Thank you. Next is 6.4 on our agenda, case 37-26. Accept the nuisance debatement lien for respondents. Icon Medical, Inc. at 2451 Enterprise Road for inoperative vehicle and issue an order with a compliance deadline to authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Daniels, you have the floor. Good afternoon, board. Jared Daniels, City of Clearwater Code Compliance Inspector. This is for 2451 Enterprise Road, a nuisance debatement. There's one violation there for Code Section 3-1506, inoperable vehicle. The notice of violation was posted on January 7, 2026, with a compliance date of January 12, 2026, certified mail was received January 16, 2026. That's the notice that was posted. That's the vehicle. It's in a medical parking lot. It came in as a complaint. I went, knocked on the door, asked the owners, well, asked the employee, and the gentleman said it was his car. It was flooded in the storm, and he waiting on the insurance company. He really had no explanation why he told it from home to the business. Probably didn't think he'd get in trouble if he parted out of the business instead of being at home. He wouldn't get him. Yeah, so no tag on there. It's a nice car. It's just like our wife's. Yeah. So compliance can be met for the inoperable vehicle by registering the vehicle through the DMV and putting a valid license plate on the vehicle, making sure the vehicle is role-worthy. For the one violation, requesting compliance five days after the board renders this order. All right. Any questions for Inspector Damage? No. All right. 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 costs, which will become a lien on the property. If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Daniels. Next up is 6.5 on our agenda, case 38.26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Todd Reese at 1104 North Garden Avenue for lock clearing and issuing order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Maddox, you have the floor. Good afternoon, board. Kevin Maddox for City of Clearwater Code Compliance. Inspector for, I'll get it up here in just a second, case number 38.26, 1104 North Garden Avenue, nuisance abatement. One violation for Code Section 1503B7, B8, and B5A for overgrowth, right-of-way overgrowth, and accumulation of debris and trash. Notice of violation was mailed and posted. There was a compliance date for December 29th, certified mail. Green card was mailed out but was not received back. Here you can see the property. It does not include this building, but it is this lot that you're looking at. It's just right on the edge of the building that doesn't belong to the lot. Grass gets very long, especially as you go further into the lot, and it just starts crawling up the sides of the neighbor's house. There's just more pictures on 1218. On 121, I took pictures again. There was no change. Everything remained the same, still long. And then today, it was still the same, still long, still not cut. Compliance can be met. Lot clearing by cutting all grass, vegetation to include the curb line, sidewalk, and continuing to maintain it, removing all trash and debris, and continuing to keep it clean. For case number 38-26 for the violations of overgrowth, overgrowth right-of-way and accumulation of debris, requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. Looks like at one time they pulled a tractor in there. You can see the tractor tire marks, like with a bush hog or something to knock down it. Up and down the garden area, there's also many of these lot owners are becoming victims of tire dumping. Yeah. So there's all sorts of things going on up and down that street. All right. Can I get a nuisance abatement? 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 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's authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right. 6.6 on our agenda, case number 39-26, accepted the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Mark and Carol Doshier at 927 Bruce Avenue for lot clearing, initiate an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Maddox, you have the floor. Good afternoon, board. Kevin Maddox. This will be for, I can't try and get this to work, 927 Bruce Avenue, nuisance abatement for case number 39-26, one violation of 1503 B7, B8, and B5A overgrowth, right-of-way overgrowth, and accumulation of debris and trash. Notice the violation was mailed out and posted on 116 of 26, compliance date of 121 of 26. The green card was mailed, but it was not received back. This is the property, which has just been left to grow the way it is. I've got some better pictures as you can look further into the property. This is in the front of the property here. As you're looking along the sidewalk and the front sidewalk, it's completely overgrown. On January 16th, you can also see that as you go further into this property, even the trees are falling down and the grass just continues to grow higher. This was on the 21st of January, and it remained the same with no change. This was this morning, with no changes and high overgrowth. Compliance can be met for lot clearing by cutting all grass and vegetation to include the curb-line sidewalk and continuing to maintain it, removing all trash and debris and continuing to keep it clean. For the recommendation for case number 39-26, for overgrowth, overgrowth right-of-way, and accumulation of debris and trash, requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. Board, do you have any questions? Does anyone live there? To my knowledge, no. And the house next door and the lot across the street, it's kind of accumulation of a lot of houses that have fallen to the previous hurricane. Right, exactly. Unfortunately. 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 costs, which will become a lien on the property. If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Step is, where are we at? 6.7. Case number, 6.7 on agenda, case number 40-26, accepted nuisance abatement lien for respondents. NSBTRI LLC at 94 Devon Drive for lot clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline. Authorize the city to mitigate the violation. If compliance is not met, Inspector Maddox, you have the floor. Kevin Maddox, Code Compliance, Inspector, City of Clearwater. Case number 40-26 for 94 Devon Drive. One violation for 1503 B7, B8, and B5A, overgrowth, overgrowth right away, and accumulation of debris and trash. Notice the violation was mailed out and posted on December 15, 2025, compliance date on the 29th of December 2025. The green card was received back, signed. I never heard from anyone by any other means. This is the front of the house. The front of the house over here is, I'll try and show you a different angle, but this is in a corner as you make a turn, and I don't know how this building is getting access, but it seems like all of the construction workers keep parking in front of this house and driving through the front yard to access this building over here, which apparently does not seem to have a driveway, so it's very strange. This is the front of the house, a little bit closer. The height is pretty obvious. Here you can see where the front of the lawn sort of has become a driveway to this building, but the property line comes down here, so it's very odd again. If you look back on the sides of the building, it's very long and unkept. On the 20th of January, it remained unchanged. Some of this debris is from the construction workers who just really don't care about an empty house and what's going on, so they keep staging their materials in the front because of the proximity. And then this morning, nothing has changed. The weeds are still high. Compliance can be met for lot clearing by cutting all grass and vegetation to include the curb line sidewalk and continuing to maintain it, removing all trash and debris and continuing to keep it clean. For 40-26, for overgrowth right-of-way and accumulation of debris and trash, we're requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. The board, do you have any questions? No. 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 costs, 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. Next. Thank you. Next up is 6.8 on our agenda, case 41-26. Accept the nuisance debatement lien with respondents, ARCA Homes LLC at 1465 San Juan Court for lot clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Stuth, you have the floor. Stuck. Stuck. The death wheel. The wheel of death. Only because it's the second-to-last one. We run out of time. Yeah, that's right. You've got to put another quarter in. The vibrating bed in the old, old town is to put the quarter in. While we're reading, have our other three minutes? Okay. Vicki Settup, Code Compliance Inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is case number 4126 for 1465 San Juan Court. There's one violation here for overgrowth, Code Section 3-1503-B7-BA-B10-B5A. Notice of violation was posted and mailed on December 18th of 2025 with a compliance date of 12-28-2025. It's a picture of posting on the front door. This was a picture of the backyard on 12-18. This is a picture of the backyard as of this morning. Compliance can be met for lot clearing by clearing all trash to bring an overgrowth from the property. Requesting compliance five days after the board renews its order. All right. Any questions, board? No. 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 costs, 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. All right. All right. Next on again is 6.9, Case 42-26. Accept the nuisance debatement link for respondents Christine Dorcellus at 214 South Highland Avenue for inoperative vehicle. An issue in order with the compliance deadline. And authorizes the city to mitigate the compliance, the violation of compliance is not there. Inspector Suze, the other floor. I'm Vicky Suddeth, Code Inspector with the City of Clearwater. This is Case 42-26 for 214 South Highland. There's one violation here for an inoperable vehicle, Code Section 3-1503B6. Notice the violation was posted and mailed on 112-26 with a compliance date of 123-26. Here's a copy of the posting. It is for a boat trailer, but there is also a boat on the trailer. This is a picture of it on the 12th. That's the boat. There's the trailer with the expired tag of 5-26-2022. This is just showing you the condition of the trailer. It's breaking. The tires are flat. They've dug into the ground. And then this was this morning. The boat is still sitting there. It still has the same tag of 5-26-2022. Compliance could be met for removing the trailer and making sure the trailer has a current tag and registration along with inflated tires. Requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. Any questions, board? No. 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 costs, which will become a lien on the property. If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right. Now, board, we have to sit and elect our officers. Yep. So, do we have any suggestions? Do we have any nominations? I'd like to nominate Mr. Brown for, what's the position? Chairman. Chairman. Chairman. Second. Third. All in favor? You're it. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? And I'd like to nominate Mr. Kenney to be the deputy or the vice, however you say it. And I would like to nominate Mr. Engel to be vice chair. Uh-oh. All right. Let's hear your spiels, guys. Come on. What can you do for this board? Can we vote? That's the guy here, right? Yeah. Oh, he's not here. Is he coming back? I don't know. Do we know anything about these people? They knew the elections were there today. Daniel. Mr. Plump did send me an e-mail while we were in a meeting. He was not able to be here. Yeah. Okay. I know Daniel lost his sister, who's about 80 years old, so he's been dealing with all the family matters and stuff. I did talk to him over the weekend. Off the record, we made a little wage on a football game, that kind of thing, and chatted a bit. And so I would assume he's fine. He had planned to be here, but I guess wasn't able to make it. So anyway. And you won't be the vice chairman if we elect you? I didn't say that. I'm just asking. I'm just offering a second nomination. I didn't recuse or deny or say no. Will you accept the nomination? Yeah. Yeah, you do. Of course. Accept the nomination. Okay. Up to you guys. We're adjourned, right? We just have to vote for that. We have to vote, yeah. All in favor of Mr. Kinney being the vice chair of the 2026 code enforcement season? Aye. Season. Aye. Aye. Aye. The ayes have it. There we go. We're all set. Excellent. We have all the people in place. Almost three hours. And we're ready for it. Well, see, I try to keep the guys out of work. I mean, I know they've got to go back to work. Oh, wait. I'm sorry. Thanks a lot. And if we have nothing else, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. You just like me. Thank you.