Municipal Code Enforcement Board on 2026-03-25 1:30 PM - Mar 25, 2026

This meeting of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board is called to order on March 25, 2026. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. 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, and then affirmative relief. Formal rules of evidence do not apply. Each site is limited to 15 minutes. The Board may grant additional time. All proceedings will be conducted in a calm, civil manner. However, individuals who conduct themselves otherwise will be asked to leave. If necessary, they will be escorted from chambers. Now I ask all who plan to speak to please rise and be sworn in by the Clerk. Our first order of business is to review and approve the minutes of last month's meeting. May I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Motion to approve. Second.

All approved? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. We're going to go a little bit out of order today in that rather than begin with our new business items, we're going to take up a lien case reduction based on a request from our Secretary. This is under, on page 6, under item 5, other board action, and this will be case 97-24. Consider a request by petitioners RE Capital Management, LLC at 2080 Douglas Avenue to reduce the fine regarding exterior surfaces, and if approved, issue an order that specifies a fine that includes administration costs and establishes a date payable, or the lien will revert to its original amount. Is there anybody here to speak on this?

Thank you, Board Members, and thank you, Nicole. It's a wonderful Nicole. Thank you.

Would you state your name and your address and involvement for the record, please?

Yes. My name is John Liu. That's spelled L-I-U. I'm a state-certified building contractor filling in for the property owner, and Nicole does have an authorization letter that's authorized and signed by the property owner. My address is 5447 Haines Road North, number 235, St. Peter's Road, Florida, 33714.

Thank you.

Basically, the property had open coast cases. It accrued a lien, and I don't know the exact dollar amounts. I don't know how to memorize, but it's around $70-something thousand dollars. The property has been brought into compliance. It looks a lot better today than it did previously, and I think the grant here is going to attest to that fact. Actually, the first time I stopped by the property was this morning. I was expecting to see worse than I saw. It looked pretty darn good. It will look even better because I'm going to be brought in to do the work from this point forward. So the property owner is respectfully requesting that, as you know, the lien be reduced and mitigated to actual hard costs, and we'll get that paid ASAP. And that's all I have to say, really, unless you have any questions. We may later. Okay. I'll step aside. Thank you.

Inspector Dixon.

Afternoon, board. Inspector Dixon, City Clearwater Coaching Plains. What he said is true. There was rotten wood around the roof flying, and then a tree fell on the house after the storms in 24, and him and an associate stepped in, and they replaced the roof, got all the wood replaced. The grounds were in pretty bad shape. There was a shed that was deteriorating, a fence is deteriorating. That's all been removed. All the dead vegetation has been gone. So the city's happy with what they've done.

Okay.

One thing we did not mention, I apologize, is the current property owner is not the owner. Please step to the mic, sir. I'm usually loud and overbearing, so I'll take a few years. You're good. The property owner is not the same owner as who incurred the liens originally. I think that's an important detail to know. Yes, thank you. Sorry about that.

All right. Does the city have a position for good for administrative costs? Is that what a thumbs-up is meant to indicate? All right. Madam Secretary, do you have a number for the administrative costs on this project? I have it, Chair. Oh, there you go. Sorry.

$1,096.20.

And confirm that this green city's content with that number?

Yep, we're good with it.

Okay. Do we have any questions? No questions from the board?

No.

With no questions, can I get a motion?

I move to enter an order reducing the amount of the lien to the administrative costs of $1,096.20, payable within 30 days. Is that what we have, 30 days? Yes. Where the lien will revert to its original amount.

I have a second. Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Now, go back to page one. Page two. New business items?

Page two is the declaration of violation.

Agenda page two.

Agenda page two. Okay.

After the cover page.

Gotcha.

All right. Our next order of business, case 3.1, has been withdrawn. Case number 3.2 is continued until May. Case 3.3 continued from February 25, 2026. Case number 23-26. Fine respondents, Connor Petron, at 3804 Brigadoon Circle, in violation of code for exterior surfaces. And issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Inspector Stevens, you have the floor.

Yes, board. This case is actually, we're requesting a declaration of violation. The property has been bought into compliance. It was just way after the compliance date. So we'll just be requesting that declaration, please.

Sir, are you here to speak on this case?

Fine. Can you address the board if you like, sir?

Sir, so you want to...

3804 Brigadoon Circle.

Very good. Thank you, sir. Basically, the inspector, you're requesting, you're saying that he's now in compliance and you're simply requesting...

Well, the declaration of violation, which is basically like you're free-bound guilty, but you're not being charged or anything. Fine, I accept that.

All right. Does the board have any questions? Can I get a 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.

May I have a second? Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Thank you, sir. Our next case, 3.4, continued from February 25, 2026. Case 24-26, fine respondents Robin Farley, the state at 1506 South Hillcrest Avenue, in violation of the code for abandoned building, and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Inspector Jensen, you have the floor.

I might just run it from... It's not open up the slideshow. We'll get through it. Dave Jensen, code inspector of the city of Clearwater. This is case 24-26 at 1506 Hillcrest for an abandoned building. Apologize, the slides aren't going to slide. So there's one violation for an abandoned building, 3-1503-B2. These are the dates of the notices and postings. That is the posting, the posting of the notice of here. No, here we go. I do what I can. It's often very little. Let's go back to this. This is the property back almost two years ago in May of 2024. There was an abandoned vehicle on the property that was removed. However, the overgrowth was present, and it's been pretty much the same way ever since. We've abated the nuisance here six times under a prior board order. We just did a mowing and abatement on the property last week. This is from, I believe, July of just last year. Same thing. Property, the front and rear yards are all overgrown. Again, we've had to go and invade the property six different times. The owner of the property is deceased. Apparently, she passed away back in 2023. There's been itinerant traffic through the house. However, there haven't been any utilities on at the residence since October of 2023. And according to neighbors, there's been no activity there as far as anyone living or occupying the residence. So we're asking for the abandoned building. Compliance can be met for abandoned building by utilities being turned on, property being sold, occupied, rented, demolished, and the property being maintained. Requesting compliance on it for April 25th of 2026, required $150 per day for each day to violation. Thank you.

Board, do you have any questions? Can I get a first violation, please?

I have a question. Have you been in touch with the new owner?

There is no owner, no. No heir? The owner is deceased, yeah.

But there's no heir?

Well, again, this is according to the neighbors. There was a son and daughter that lived there at one point. However, neither one of them could keep up with the property, and they had not seen anything. There's been no evidence of anyone being there. I've been looking at the property now for almost two years.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I just, if nobody owns it, who is supposed to pay the fines?

Well, the deceased party is still technically the owner. It would be the estate. So basically, I would defer to our counsel to answer that. It's probably better than I can.

Somebody owns the property. It's just when you die, the property automatically goes to your heirs. Right. We don't track that down. We name the estates, and then we record against the property, and then whoever inherits it will then assume the lien that's created through this process. I got you. Yes.

And according to the property appraiser, Robin Farley is the owner's name. It's still in property appraiser as under her name. And so there is no trust or, you know, a state established at this point that works.

That's how we choose who to name is we just look at the property appraiser and the tax collector records, and then we go with that. We don't order title work unless it's – we may do that for an abatement or something like that. But for a case like this, we wouldn't do a title search.

Any other questions? May I have a first motion, please?

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

Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. I have a second motion, please.

Mr. Chairman, I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations only before April 25, 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.

I have a second.

I'll second it.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Inspector. Our next case, 3.5, is continued to May. 3.6 is also continued to May. 3.7, continued from February 25, 2026. Case 34-26, fine respondents William Black at 2390 Willow Tree Trail in violation of code for unsafe building. An issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector, I believe you have Mr. Black behind you. Good day, Mr. Black. How are you?

How are I?

Good. State your name and address.

Yeah, William Black, 2390 Willow Street Trail.

Thank you. Where are you? I seem to remember this case from last month. Last month. And so, it would appear that the city is still seeking a violation for code for an unsafe building.

Yes, sir.

I'm James Larson, building inspector. Willow Tree Trail. All the same information as last time. What's most important is, for us, there has been some progress. Remember, he had a demolition permit. Yes, sir. And I was out there yesterday, and I was able to get some pictures of the property. The previous city's asking for is within the next 60 days that he get this house put back together. This is the house as of yesterday. This is the dumpster in his front yard. This is the interior where demolition has occurred. Drywall is removed.

These pictures are from yesterday, Inspector? Yes, sir. Sorry, I put the date on there for us. Okay, yeah.

And Dr. Black's been in communication with me throughout the process. For compliance to be met, we're looking for complete restoration to meet minimum code requirements or demolish the remaining structure and make the yard and swimming pools safe. The recommendation, if the structure is not in compliance by May 29th, 2026, the city asks the board to authorize entrance onto the property to correct the violations. The city will correct the violations by any means necessary, with any reasonable cost to be applied as liens against the property. After three months from the recording date of such lien that the fines and fees remain unpaid, the city's attorney's office is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien using any legal or equitable remedies available under the law.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Chair, before we pass, may I add a few things to the presentation?

Yes, please.

As you recall, if you recall, last month, I specifically asked for a continuance because I wanted to look into the permit issue. There's nothing in Florida law that says that when the city issues a permit that that would now exempt that property from nuisance codes, which is what our abandoned building code, the codes that's being brought to you today. So all the building permit does is authorize construction according to the plans that are part of that permit application. So the rule still applies. That's why we decided to just present the same remedy that we requested before. The other thing to add is that this is a homesteaded property, so this is our standard language that's in front of you right now about foreclosure. But we are prohibited by law from foreclosing on a homestead property. But that's the only specific provision of law that changes the circumstance for a homestead property. All the other rules apply in terms of nuisance and the conditions of the property and the city's ability to go and abate through demolition. And so that's kind of my closing note here. The request is any means necessary. What we mean by that is demolition of the structure. So if the board grants what we're requesting, if the house is not brought into compliance within the deadline that the board imposes, the city would then get bids from demolition contractors and then carry out a demolition and record a lien for the cost of that demolition against the property. So that lien would still show up in the public records. It would still impact the title and the ability to sell the property. But the city could not foreclose on that lien and take the property because of the fact that it's currently homesteaded, as far as I can see in the records. So I just wanted to make sure that we're all clear in terms of what the proceeding is today, what the city's asking for. And then also we do have some citizens that want to speak on this, and I would request that the board hear from them before the board makes a decision on this. All right.

Very good. Mr. Black? I'm sorry. Mr. Larson, did there's something you wanted to say? No, sir.

There's other people I thought you would say.

Okay. Mr. Black?

FST. My intent was to just continue. So if there's a complaint specific, I will do the best I can with the pool. The main thing I need is power. My son is a pool mechanic, and maybe I could run a pool pump from a generator. But I was just going to continue the permit, and it's not realistic to put a house totally together. I would need another permit and various professionals and inspections. If that runs into almost a year, I'm just trying to continue the project.

Understood. And you've begun demolition?

Demolition to expose further damages. Right. An electrical contractor, architect would be a duct work going on. In 60 days, it takes that long to order windows and have them delivered.

Understood.

I just need to continue.

Okay. Questions? Excuse me.

I'd like to hear from the other citizens, Chair. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Black. Would you like to sit for a minute? We'll hear from our other parties involved. Can you state your name and address for the record, please?

Stephanie Sisti, 2479 Moorhaven Drive West. Stephanie Sisti. Thank you. S-I-S-T-I. So, I'm here on behalf of Woodgate Homeowners Association. I live in that neighborhood. And this is a letter a few of us came up with, and I volunteered to read it today. We respectfully request your immediate action regarding the property at 2390 Willow Tree Trail. The structure sustained significant fire damage in September of 2023 and has remained in a severely deteriorated and unsecured condition for approximately two and a half years. Since that time, no meaningful progress has been made toward repair, rehabilitation, or demolition. The current condition of the property presents ongoing concerns to the surrounding community, including a visibly compromised and deteriorating structure, potential safety risks due to neglect and lack of maintenance, an attractive nuisance that may invite trespassing, a negative impact on neighboring property values and overall neighborhood standards. Despite multiple continuances and extended opportunities granted to the property owner, there has been no demonstrable progress towards bringing the property into compliance. It is our understanding that property taxes remain unpaid for multiple years, further indicating an inability to resolve this matter independently. While we are sympathetic to the owner's personal circumstances, the prolonged inaction has placed an unfair and ongoing burden to the surrounding residents and community. Given the length of time this issue has persisted and the lack of progress, we respectfully request that the board take decisive action to affirm the property status as unsafe and uninhabitable, if not already designated. Move forward with enforcement measures requiring demolition or full remediation. Utilize any available legal or municipal remedies to bring the property into compliance without further delay. Our priority is the safety, stability, and integrity of our neighborhood. Residents have been patient throughout this extended process, but the current situation is no longer sustainable. Thank you.

Thank you. Board, do you have any questions? I would welcome some input from the board. I have one question. Do you have any additional people to speak? There's more people to speak. Yeah. Please.

My name is Susan Huddleston. I live at 2384 Willow Tree Trail, directly next door to Mr. Black. I've lived next door to him for over 20 years. Our garages and driveways are together, about 25 feet apart, I guess. Prior to the fire, Bill had difficulty maintaining his house and property, so all of this did not occur. Could you speak up? Just because of the fire.

Could you speak up?

Just because of the fire. Yeah. Could you speak up? Oh. Prior to the fire, Bill had difficulty maintaining his house and property, so none of this occurred just because of the fire. Examples of these are there's been a blue car parked in front for many, many years, never going anywhere. His yard was not kept. His pool has been consistently green, and his fence was broken around the pool. That would present a health and safety issue. This was all before the fire, so it continues. After the fire, I was patient because I felt bad for him and his health deterioration, but since his garage door and side garage door stood ajar this entire time, the smoke smell was overwhelming for over a year. During that time, I finally called the building code inspector, first asking for help for Bill. I felt bad for him, knowing he was unable to repair what needed to be done, and neighbors were tired of the mess. I spoke with the former inspector several times, and I don't feel like anything was ever done. Recently, due to lack of care of his palm tree on the back, which is next to my property, the entire top of the palm tree fell into my yard, and I had to pay to have somebody cut it and remove it. Next, I have a wheelchair van for my daughter, and I had problems when she was in it, starting it a couple times, and finally found out a rodent had eaten the wire in it. And right after that, my other vehicle had rodent deposits in the filters. I never had that before. That was all recent. Now I have to keep rodent repellent in both vehicles to prevent that. A deserted, vacant home with easy access for anyone to enter at any time, day or night, makes me feel uncomfortable living next door. The home value also would be affected. I've gone through the system, which has failed myself and my neighbors. That's all I have.

Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Laurel Cavins, and we live two houses. I live next door to her. And for several years, the pool, at least 10 years, has not had any kind of pumping going on. Black. We've had those black mosquitoes around our neighborhood. We've had a trouble with the mosquitoes, the fencing, as she had said, holes in it that a young child could probably get into. The very back of it, the front is boarded up. The backyard, which does have a fence around it now, but the windows are open. So we don't know. Are there critters in there? Has anybody seen any kind of health issues because of the animals possibly being in there? And that's what a lot of us are concerned about, plus the way it looks. Our house values are going down. And it's been almost three years. Very little has been done to that. They did work on it last weekend. They cut some tree limbs down, and one couch was on the side of the road. Other than that, we haven't seen a lot of progress going on or anybody working on it. So we are concerned about this. And what she said in the letter, you know, the rodents, or if that's what they are, you know, we're all kind of subjected to protect our own property. So hopefully this will get done. Does he have proof that he's got an engineer and financial? Does he have proof that he can do it within the 30, 60 days? That's just what we want to know, you know, how far this is going to go, how long is it going to be? Thank you.

Thank you. Can I ask one quick question, ma'am? Did you say 10 years on the pool?

At least. We've lived there for over 40 years, and we could see through the fence. And like she said, it was either green or black. It's not filled up. It's not moving. So we know that nothing, the pool is just stagnant.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sir, did you wish to speak? Yes.

John Cabins, 2378 Willow Tree Trail. What I just want to know is, does he have any insurance, and does he have any income? And he said he applied for a grant last month we were here. He said he applied for a grant. And I'm wondering if what grant for how much, and did he have the house evaluated by an engineer to determine the cost of, you know, fixing it? And we've seen notices posted up there that the house was a nuisance. And it said there was going to be fines after, I don't know, 30 days. There was going to be a certain amount of fines every day. And I'm wondering, that's been over a year ago. I'm wondering the amount of fines that have accrued. I mean, is he going to be financially able to do this? You know, we know that the house is a, it's run down and it's a nuisance. But can he afford to fix it? Does he have the means? And maybe you can, Bill, can tell you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Patrick Rafter. My address is 3237 Masters Drive in Clearwater. I'm a vice president of Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition. And one of the initiatives we undertook in 2025 was to assist any member with respect to code violations or code compliance issues. This HOA reached out to me in June of 2025 to assist them with this matter. You've listened to the history of it. You know the details of what's been going on for how long and the fact that this is an absolute eyesore in the neighborhood. I began attending your board meetings to see what you would be doing to protect neighborhoods from a residence that looks like this. And I've not been too impressed with what's been taking place. However, on February 25th, the city moved to get authorization from you to go on the property to begin the process for demolition of this property. And to everybody's surprise, Mr. Black made the first appearance, to my knowledge, at your meeting and indicated that he had secured a permit the Friday before. That caused Mr. Simpson to request a 30-day continuance while he looked into the matter. I also recall this board back in October of 2025 requiring Mr. Black to have a structural engineer study his property to see if it could, in fact, be renovated or should, in fact, be demolished as an unsafe structure, including his financial ability to undertake renovation if that was decided. Mr. Black did not appear at that meeting, did not have that study done, and presented no evidence whatsoever of being able to renovate his property. It continues to be a problem going into year three. And listening to what he's saying today, it will probably go into year four. So my concern, this HOA's concern, and the neighborhood concern of our organization is we need to do something to protect the neighborhood from a residence like this. And I hope you'll take the firm action and decisive action in spite of what Mr. Black says he will accomplish. Will he be able to do that in a reasonable period of time? I would implore each of you to go visit this residence. It is an absolute disgrace. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir.

Questions from the board?

I have a question for the city. What occurred in October 25 as far as the evaluation of the building and finances? Was anything done at that time?

I don't recall what that was spoken about at the meeting. I would need to review previous meeting records. Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I have just one question for Mr. Black. Mr. Black, where are you living at presently?

Do you need an address?

Well, no. Are you in a home or are you in a motel or what?

I'm in a room in a home. Okay.

That's all I'll need to know. Thank you.

Yeah. I have a question. The last time you did ask, you said that you were applying for a grant. Has there been any progress on that?

Well, I can't drive that schedule. I believe I have the, well, with all the pricing I believe I can do, I could complete it myself. I couldn't have a retirement too well, and I intend to. I've started now. I don't intend to stop, but it's not realistic, anything, 60 days. You know, there are permits. There are inspections. There's windows. There's a roof. I am actively involved with NLS Recovers and a grant, and we're still discussing it, but I can't run their timeline. I was going to continue DEMO and continue what I can do right now, and hopefully soon I hear more.

So, have you started, do you have any architects drawing up plans or renovations, electrical plans?

Well, I don't intend to change a floor plan. I would like to do, I'll get a hold of architects soon to inspect trusses so that at night they can see where I can continue. The actual structure experienced the effects of Helena and Milton after the fire. So, the structure is there. It's interior work, wiring, et cetera, and all the inspections involved.

Mr. Black, if you do not obtain the grant, do you have the finances to restore the house to its original condition?

I believe yes. I cannot upgrade basic. I believe I do.

Are you saying that you can only upgrade the basics?

Right. Restore it to, yeah, it could be important to me to abandon 95 degrees power. Probably most any time.

Good question. Did you say that you're doing the work yourself?

No. It's not the rest. I'm just overseeing it.

Do you have some topside number that you're willing to spend on renovating this as opposed to just taking it down and rebuilding?

Taking it down just costs more money. Topside of $50,000. The person that's tearing the walls out can put them up. And he's already passed inspections. That's the work he does.

Inspector Orson. So we are hearing testimony from different people that there's been code like that, possible code violations for the last 10 years, but also within the last two and a half years they called the office and stuff. Has code enforcement always responded to their violations, their calls?

I've worked for the city for six months. I'm honestly not familiar with any history.

Mr. Chairman, can I speak to that, please, if I may? There have been cases. We discussed this briefly last month. There have been other cases. There are fines. There is a history of process with this property. But I would also say that what we're here for today is specific to the code section 3-1503D2, which is what was cited and brought to you today. That's the – we sometimes refer to it as unsafe buildings, but this is a nuisance code in the city's nuisances code. And it's specific to buildings which are abandoned, boarded up for a period of six months, partially destroyed for any period of time, or left for a period of three months in a state of partial construction, provided that any unfinished building which has been under construction for six months or more shall be deemed or presumed to have been left for an unreasonably long period of time in the sense of this subsection. So that's 3-1503 nuisances B2, and I think it's pretty clear. I don't think it's even been debated at all by Mr. Black that this is a partially destroyed building that we're dealing with here. We're mostly – most of the discussion is centered around what the remedy is and whether or not the remedies of rehabilitation is a realistic remedy. But I would just say that that's – our focus today is on that code section and what we're presenting to the board today regarding the partial destruction of this building and whether or not the city should be allowed to go and demolish it after a certain period of time.

I guess, Mr. Simpson, my question is, why has it taken two and a half years for this to get to this point? It was my question I was raising to the city because the residents are quite upset, and they're looking for us to sort this out. But it's taken a long time for this to get before us, and that's what we're concerned about.

So what I would say to that is we have brought cases. There are fines. There have been minor abatements performed on the property. As I stated earlier, this – according to the records, this is a homesteaded property, and it is – you know, it's a residential single-family home. And the remedy of the city taking the action of entering onto private property and demolishing a home that is homesteaded according to the records is something that we are methodical and very thoughtful of. It's not something that we – it's not something that we expedite. It's something that a lot of people within the organization of the city need to look at and thoughtfully consider before we do. We have had complaints. We're here – we're here now. We're putting the remedy before the board. And so we are asking for this remedy now, but it's not something that we take lightly. We do have to put a lot of time and consideration into a case like this.

I have a couple of questions. Okay. What I'm seeing here is the violation that's being presented to us is violation of code for unsafe building. And for the – I'm reading the – looking at the Section 3, 1503, 1502 says the building shall be maintained in accordance with the building code. And we've – we know this has been going on for at least two, two and a half years or so. Three years. And then in Section 1503, I'm looking at the resolution, and it says buildings which are abandoned, boarded up for a period of six months, partially destroyed for any period of time, or left for a period of three months in a state of partial construction, provided that any unfinished portion – unfinished building or structure has been under construction, et cetera, et cetera. So, you know, we're well past the six-month deadline. We're looking at a violation of code for unsafe building. And then up against that, we're looking at the fact that Mr. Black has a demolition permit only that, to our knowledge, there's no – there's been no engineering study. There are no contractor quotes. There's been no – necessarily a timeline put together, estimates from a contractor, some projection to indicate what the entire process involves and how long that's going to take. So, based on my knowledge in the industry, I believe that we're looking at a code compliance deadline of – was it 60 days? Yes, sir. All right. That might be adequate for demo, but without any projection or any numbers and what the future brings, without any of that in place, my question is, what constitutes compliance? Is it simply the demo permit being executed and the building boarded up, which keeps it in its current condition? I'm trying to understand here what is compliance. Is it the building fully restored?

The fact that he has a demolition permit does not make the violation go away. So, to be in compliance, the house needs to meet minimum codes, which it does not. The city is asking for 60 days. It's really up to you guys. If you think it's going to take longer, what you want to do. I mean, our opinion is, at this point, my personal opinion is, he did get a demo permit. He has done some demolition. The residents are saying, okay, do you have the money to finish the job, et cetera, et cetera. I've spoke to Mr. Black. I've probably got 15, 20 hours of speaking with him on the phone, meeting with him. You know, my recommendation has been to him to get a contractor because that's what we do. I'm a licensed contractor. I know you are, sir. At this point, it's really a matter of what's he going to do next.

Mr. Chair, if I may add to that. The permit that's out there now is not something that would be sufficient to bring it into compliance. It's my understanding. It's just a partial demolition. So, even if he were to complete that permit, he would still have a code violation for the section that's in front of you today. Right. Now, if he submitted for a new permit for a full rehabilitation with plans and was able to get a permit that would bring it fully into compliance, then that would change the context of what – it wouldn't necessarily be an abandoned building at that point. It would be a construction site. But it would still violate the other section that's presented about it not being in compliance with the building code or the maintenance code. And at that point, I saw Mr. Garrett was coming to the podium. But it would be within the jurisdiction of the building official to determine whether or not we would continue to pursue the remedy of demolition. If it was, in fact, an active construction site with an issue – with a permit issued, that the scope of the permit would be sufficient to bring the property into compliance.

Mr. Chairman? I think we – I think that our legal question is simply because he has a demo permit, do we have to wait until that permit expires? Does it start the process of getting it into compliance because in the time he could get the other plans and everything? Or I think that's a legal question for our attorney to answer.

Well, I think that's – I think our answer is on the screen there. Thank you, Mr. Garrett, for helping bring that forward, that my question was about, you know, let's define compliance so that – because we're playing that against a requested timeline of 60 days and with only a demo permit in place, part of that equation is, okay, so considering all of those factors, what's next? This defines compliance. It says complete restoration to meet minimum code requirements to demolish the remaining structure and make the yard and swimming pool safe. So complete compliance, in my mind, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Larson and Mr. Garrett, that means the fence is repaired, the pool is clean and working properly, the residence is restored, and everything is done for code.

Kevin Garrett, building official, city clear on our – that's absolutely correct. That's what we're looking for. We're looking for code compliance. We want the yard, the pool, the house, everything to meet code, minimum standards. Code is the worst building you can build. You know, that's – you can always do more, but you can't do less than that. That's what we're looking for. And we are two and a half years into this, and there's been minimal, minimal, until just a few weeks ago when pushed with this board here and coming up, that then an interior exploration demo permit was obtained, and I think the value on that was, like, listed at $5,000 or something. Don't quote me on that. So it wasn't to tear down the structure. It was to do interior exploration. So the way this board works and the way we work with the board is if a property has gotten a board order and the date passed and they didn't comply, we turn in a notice of noncompliance. If we see somebody who is actively working, they're making progress, they're passing inspections, it looks like the road is going to end up in the final place where we want, we are not going to turn in a notice of noncompliance.

Thank you.

We would wait until we get the project done and turn in a notice of compliance. If there's no activity, if it's dilly-dallying around, pardon the expression, but we are going to turn in a notice of noncompliance because it is not bringing the property into code compliance. That's our objective. We're not here to tear down properties. We're not here to clean up yards. We want the homeowner to have a responsibility and to take care of the property and leave us out of it, basically. Any questions you have, I can try and answer them.

Thank you for that.

I have a quick question. We've got a pool problem and a fence problem. So can you go in and do parcels or do you have to, it's all or nothing for the city to go in?

What's the question? If he did part of it?

If he's working on the interior. In the meantime, that pool's sitting out there unprotected and unmaintained.

Right. That is still a code issue that we could still pursue. It would probably take another citation to just address that. I don't know. We'd have to address how to really handle that best. But, yeah, we could. It would still be a lot.

Because that goes into my next question, which is we've got an unsafe building order that has a time frame that's flexible and a fine per day. Then we've got the nuisance abatement lien order, which says five days and doesn't have any fines in it. So what's his incentive to move forward until the city decides to step in? So I'm not sure exactly what we're trying to do. We may need to do two different orders, one to get this building going and give that a day and a fine, and the other one to get that pool taken care of.

Please. So to the first question about what I – your first question I would characterize as a partial abatement, the city typically doesn't do partial abatements. We usually – if we get an abatement order, like what we're requesting here is a demolition order, which is essentially the city requesting authority to enter onto that property, demolish the structure, remove the pool. What would be left would be sod and a grass lot, essentially, when the contractor was done. I don't know if Mr. Gary wanted to clarify anything there. Okay. We don't typically go in and just – if the windows are messed up, fix the windows and then leave – or fix the pool and then leave the rest. We don't typically do that.

I'm basically concerned about the pool. How do you get that done? No matter what orders we do.

Yeah, the pool is a health and safety. That's one that has to be taken care of. It's a nuisance in the neighborhood. A nuisance. A attractive nuisance.

We would defer to the board if the board wanted to put those different structures of the pool and the home on different timelines. I think that's – I don't think we necessarily would have an objection to that. We do have an issue with kind of piecemealing it because it's difficult for us to manage that. We don't want to assume some kind of ongoing maintenance obligations over anything on the property. And then I think on your second question was – can you refresh me on your second question there?

They just want to make sure they could do two time periods.

Oh, it was the fine. That's what – it was the fine. I'm sorry. We are not seeking a fine here because there are fines on this property. We have sought fines in the past, and the fines have not had a material impact on the outcomes of the pool.

All right, so the pool is still running somewhere in the back.

The fines are running. We've performed minor abatements. At this point, we're looking for an ultimate.

Right. The fines will only end up as a lien. So there's no foreclosure action. So the abatement is the only thing that the city would be able to do in the short term.

Plum, you had something to offer? Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that it's apparent that the demo permit alone is not sufficient to bring it up to compliance. And so if Steve wants to make two separate motions, I would support that or just a single –

Can I ask just one more question? You're saying this is a homesteaded property, but he hasn't lived there in two and a half years, and he can't live in it. So how can it be a homesteading property?

Well, we – the case law on homestead is – first of all, I'll say that homestead is – it's both a constitutional right of a property owner, but it also has a statutory place within the code enforcement process. The case law – there's a lot of case law from the courts interpreting homestead. Homestead, because it's a constitutional right, it's interpreted very much in favor of protecting a property owner's ability to claim homestead protection from predators and things like that. We, as the city, we don't typically contest or try to litigate the question of homestead. If it's been determined that by the property appraisers and tax collectors and those other constitutional officers, we typically accept that. There are claims for – that could be made to question the validity of the homestead. That really gets to the intent of the property owner, and if they intend to live there at some point again. If the home was obviously destroyed by a fire here, it's my understanding – you know, we could ask Mr. Black what he intends to do with the home. But the city, we typically don't take a position with regards to the validity of the homestead. And if that's been determined to be homestead by the other constitutional officer, the county officers, then we typically accept that determination.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, what I wanted – I wasn't quite done when I was speaking. I'm sorry. I think before we take any motions, I think you need to explain to Mr. Black that – for the seriousness of the matter, that he needs to get his other permits applied for or – Please. Mr. Black, it's become very clear to the board that just having a demo permit is not sufficient, and you need to get everything into code compliance, so you would start to need to get all those together. Because if we make a motion today, then you have the time of that when this motion goes into effect to that time period to get those all together. So we just want you to be aware of that, okay?

So pursue the next permit?

But you need to do it on a very timely basis.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address that. I understand my peers' consideration about the pooling yard, but that's really just putting a Band-Aid on the whole problem. It should be – and I understand Mr. Black's predicament. I also appreciate the residents' predicament that live near and around him. There's a lot of ifs on Mr. Black's part. It's either – the city's been very patient for three years, so have the residents, and we have to take that into serious consideration today instead of putting everything to continue. It's either all or nothing. You have to do something, and you're not doing enough.

I didn't start to continue.

But you keep getting continuous for three years.

I cut a permit. Well, that's not sufficient. That's why I had a lawn service during the time. I got a cancer diagnosis the month, and I didn't think I could handle it. But I'm in now until I pull exploratory ammo, and I intend to continue.

I just don't think you're going to be able to pull anything off in 60 days.

Well, 60 days would not be reasonable to leave the project, but I'll try to do something with the pool. The biggest obstacle for me is that the house is powered, the pool. Many of the nuisance complaints seem to be mostly about exterior and interior, so I can do more security and pool. Thank you, sir.

We appreciate it. Based on my understanding from what the city has offered, if there's significant progress, then the door may still be open. But I'm ready for the board to offer something.

Well, are we doing a nuisance abatement on the property as a whole to start with? That seems to be the way it's going. I would.

I mean, I think that's the way the city has positioned it now.

Okay. So then my question, to follow up and just make sure we're clear on it, if we did a second nuisance abatement just for the pool and the fence, would the city go out and just take care of that under that separate order?

I'll have to defer that to the building official. I don't see it as a legal question because I do think that we could legally separate them, but I do see it as a potential logistical issue. Madam Clerk has given it. Okay. Well, let's see. So there's also a question in terms of the order itself.

Would it make any difference to you whether we did them separately or just did it as one?

Logistically, I think to go in and take out just the pool would be – I mean, we could do it. It would be more expensive to do that way than if you had a contractor just come in and do the whole site. So I guess, yeah, we could do it.

Under the one or would you need a separate one?

We could do it all under one. That was really what we had in mind and we have done on other properties and other people have done that kind of thing. How do we get the pool taken care of?

Well, what would be the benefit of doing that? I mean, right now it's roof as a whole and, I mean, based on what we've heard from the city, if he handles the pool, then the pool is off the table. Well, it's part of the overall and it's just down to the house and the other structures. So I don't understand the benefit of separating it out and going through that industry. Because one needs to be done right now. Well, understood it needs to be done right now. But even if we ordered it now, there's still going to be a, you know, we're still following the rules and the guidelines and the timelines. It's, you know, so if we do the order as requested, then.

Right now could have been three years ago.

I mean. It doesn't make it any safer now. Gotcha. And you've got people coming in from the neighborhood saying, hey, you know, we've got mosquitoes, we've got rats, we've got this, we've got that. So, okay, so we just go with one.

I think we just make a motion for Neeson as a payment.

I would agree. I want to say something, yes. Yes. I think our job is to determine, is the code in violation or not? It clearly is. That code that was specifically up there, that's what we have to address. And as a volunteer to this board, I've never been, never thought I'd have to decide, does someone's house get torn down or not? But it's not that. Yeah, if you could put that back up again, please. It is simply what Section 3-1503 nuisances says. This property has been in this condition for more than six months. It's in violation. And I think that is the simplicity of what we need to address.

Thank you.

Yeah.

All right. Mr. Chair, if I may. There was a question that was raised to me on the sidebar in terms of how the pool is a part of this case. The pool is a structure. Its current condition is clear that it's partially destroyed. And it is a structure that's subject to the building code. So that's our position as a city in terms of how the – because normally in a typical case, we would bring the pool separately as an abandoned pool nuisance. So we do have a separate section that we can bring those issues separately, but we have not separated them in this case before you. But we include them as destroyed structures on the property, and we're trying to include them all together. I understand the concern in terms of the urgency. I think the board could separate timelines legally, but it does create a logistic issue because if we do get the authority to enter an abate today, if that time comes – first off, there would be a deadline where we would come back with that as the building official described in terms of the noncompliance affidavit. So that would be another point of consideration for the board. Assuming that it's still in violation at that point, then we come to the time that we actually are going to perform the abatement. We would hire contractors, get quotes, and then carry it out through our procurement process. So we would be notifying the property owner of that process as it was ongoing. So I do think it could create some issues on the backside of the process there in terms of finding different contractors to do different things, and then the city entering the property, doing some work, leaving, coming back later, and doing some additional work. Obviously, we're going to follow the direction of the board today, so if that's the pleasure of the board, we'll figure out a way, and we'll be back again to discuss it further. But today we've asked for everything to be bundled together, and for Madam Clerk and the others that have asked, that that's why we've grouped them together. They're all structures subject to the building code, and they're all partially destroyed in a nuisance state.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a nuisance of payment, single motion. Please. I move to find the respondent was in violation of code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The violation was corrected prior to the decision. Is that the wrong one? Wrong page. Page seven. Page seven, sorry. I withdraw that. Thank you. Okay. I was on the wrong page, sorry. I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violation within five days of the board's written order. Excuse me. Is that the right one? Yes, it is.

May 29th. I believe they were asking for 60 days, May 20th. Yeah. Not five days, May 29th.

May 29th. Correction. Not five days, May 29th, 2026.

Let's get the correct date on this.

Okay. Does it make any difference? May 29th.

Can we just hear from the city to make sure we're getting everything that they're asking for?

Here it is, right here. Right?

I just want to make sure.

Okay.

All right, May 29th.

So it would be exactly like that.

I'm sorry. I was in a sidebar conversation again. As far as I've heard, I don't have any objections so far. Are you? All right. Just want to make sure. All right. All right.

Let's do it.

Okay. So I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of the code and requiring the respondent, if the structure is not in compliance by May 29th, 2026, the city may take responsible 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, and settle such lien.

May I have a second? Second. All in favor? All in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Is this all together? Before you bring that gavel down, is this all together? Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes, you do. Okay. Aye. One violation.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Black. Thank you, Mr. Garrett. Thank you, citizens. All right. Moving on to our next item, case 4426, fine respondents Cleveland Gulf Debay, LLC, at 1417 Cleveland Street in violation of the Code for Exterior Services, and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance does not matter. Inspector Sudik, you have the floor. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Where are we at? Item 3.8. 3.8? No, we didn't. No. 3.8.

Yeah, you're okay. Yeah, we're fine.

Please step forward and state your name and address. I'm Nick Anderson. I'm the property manager for 1417 Cleveland, or Cleveland Gulf Debay, LLC.

Thank you.

Real estate.

Thank you very much. We'll hear from you. Do we do an admit or deny on this? All right. Mr. Anderson, do you admit to violation or deny?

Yes, I admit to violation. We're ready to go. We've started on it now, but I don't have it completed yet.

Got you. Okay.

So, and I've got a timeline here, which I can show you, that I've instructed, I can show you pictures of the starting of what we've got. We've got a whole bunch of set up to do. The building needs some work.

Got you. We're going to do our first motion, and then we'll have you back up to speak. Thank you.

I move to find the response in violation of the code as referred to it with the affidavit in this case.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? And carries. Inspector Sudik, you have the floor.

Vicki Sudik, Code Compliance Inspector with the City of Clearwater. This is for property located at 1417 Cleveland Street, case number 4426. There is one violation here for Code Section 3-1502B for exterior surfaces. The notice of violation was sent on December 19th of 2025 with a compliance date of January 19th of 2026. Certified mail received was received on 12-29-2025. This is a picture of the property when I originally looked at it back in October. This was before the violation was sent out. I got a call out to the property, and this is what it looked like at that time. These are pictures of the back of the property, the side, the very back. These pictures were taken in February, and then these pictures were taken today. I did go back out there. Nothing has been done to the property. It's progressively getting worse. The grass was finally cut sometime over the last couple days, which is the back of the property. Compliance could be met for the exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structural and decorative elements of any building wall and sure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, and faded peeling paint. Requesting compliance on or before April 25th of 2026 are a fine of $150 per day for violation if compliance is not met.

Thank you. Mr. Anderson? Yes. I can get most of that done by April 25th, right? And I'd like to see if it's possible to separate this concept. There's three sides of the building that are easily handled, right? The back is a mess, and I need a lot of prep work to that. I mean, I've got 20 years of poor maintenance, but we've only had the building a couple of years, and we hadn't had the funds to do much work on it. Finally, I've got the place all filled up, and I'm starting to get enough funds to be able to do a little bit of work on it. So I'm just – I can absolutely get by April 25th – I've got the timeline here so I can get the painting done for the first – the east side, the front, and the west side. So with the option – with a condition that I'm not sure about murals, there's a city mural on the side of that building on the west side, and I have to find out what the rules are about murals. I don't think I can just paint over a mural that's been done. This one's been there like 15 years. So if I can paint over it, I will. If I can't paint over it, then we have to treat that separately. And then the back, if I could just have more time to do that because I've got three, four weeks of just wires and plumbing, and I've got four different AC things there. I've moved ACs to the top from the back, and people before that had done that too, and they just put boards up, and they did all sorts of stuff, and I've got a bunch of stuff back there. So my point is that, yes, I can do three sides by the 25th of April, but I need another 30 days to be able to do the rest.

So 60 days, you think, would be enough to get the project fully complete? Yes. All right. So we'll make it May 27th. Whatever the – that's a question for the Secretary of War.

Is it May 27th for the next day?

Well, I have a question for this, especially Ms. Sutter. How long has this case been going on, Vicki?

Well, I started talking October about it. I didn't send a violation out right away because when we spoke, he told me that he was going through the grant program. Several conversations we had, he told me that it was in the process, but then when I spoke to Vicki last week, she said that the paperwork had never been turned in. She had never received anything more from him. And then when I spoke to him at the code board last month, he told me that the paperwork was turned in. But according to Vicki on Friday, nothing to be turned in.

So it's been going on for about six months then. Okay. Thank you.

But I don't really think – I think I told her I was in progress on that, the paperwork for that. But I never turned it in because I could never quite get the owner's agreement to do his part because that grant takes about 35% or more – 35% to 45% owner responsibility. And I never quite got his agreement to do that. So now we're just doing this without trying to go through the grant program. So that delayed me from doing this because I was trying to push it through that because we wanted to do signage and we wanted to do parking. We wanted to do several things, but I couldn't quite get the owner's agreement on that. So now with this deadline coming up, I said, we've got to do something. And I finally got the agreement to do this. So that's been the delay so far.

What happened with the grant program?

It's still there. You could do it. My owner just didn't want to do the steps necessary. He'd have to go get a loan. And I kept trying to go get that to happen, and it just didn't happen. So I had to opt when we came to the point where, like, we've got to get the building done because it's causing too many problems. So we came up with this other solution. Not doing the grant, just doing it on the line. Not doing all the signage, not doing all the parking, just get the painting done.

So the city is requesting compliance on them before April 25th. Any discussion about that from the board in terms of additional time or sticking with that?

I'm okay to extend it to May 27th. It feels like it can get it done.

Okay. Yeah. So 60 days. Yeah. Okay.

Very good. Ready? Yes, sir. I moved in an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before May 27th, 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. May I have a second?

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Opposed.

Opposed. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next on our agenda is 310, Case 46-26, Fine Respondents Affordable Properties Management Realty LLC, TRE at 1111 Court Street in violation of code for exterior surfaces, an issue in order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Inspector Sudeck, you have the floor. Is there anyone here to speak on this?

There.

Sir, can you state your name? Michael Shushone.

In front of the microphone, please, sir. Michael Shushone. I reside at 4027. Like this, man, sir. Thank you, sir. Your address, please. Shushone, S-H-I-M-S-H-O-N-I. Happens every time, sir.

Thank you.

I reside at 4027 32nd Street North in St. Petersburg. I'm a real estate broker with affordable realty. We manage the property for the trust, and I would like to explain the nature of the violation.

Okay, sir, what we typically do is we're going to hear from the inspector first, and then we'll have you come back up and address this. Do you admit or deny the violation, sir? I'm sorry? Do you admit or deny the violation?

I admit.

All right. Thank you, sir. We'll call you back up. Any first motion, please?

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

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Inspector Suthith, you have the floor.

Vicki Suthith at the City of Clearwater, Code Compliance Inspector. This is for case number 42-26 for 1111 Port Street. There is two violations here, Code Section 3-1502C1 and C3 for door and window maintenance, and Code Section 3-1502B for exterior surfaces. The notice of violation was sent on December 12th of 2025 with a compliance date of January 12th of 2026, and the certified mail receipt was received on December 22nd of 2025. This is a picture of the front of the building on December 10th, again on January 29th, and then again this morning. Compliance can be met for the doors and window by removing all boards and covering from all doors and windows. Ensure all doors and windows are in good repair, including window frames, stills, and panes. 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, faded, and peeling paint. We're requesting compliance on before April 30th, 2026, or a fine of $150 per day per violation if the violation is – well, if compliance is not met. Sorry.

Thank you.

Sir, tell us about this. Step and throw the microphone, if you would. Thank you.

Well, since March of last year, we've been working with some outfit at the City of Clearwater that has grants and grant money to redo the whole facade of the place. They gave us a list of items that they requested, and we've been given everything they asked. We send them stuff, and then it takes about another month, and we get another thing. And anyway, the last thing they requested was insurance that we get to do the work just for this specific project. They said they have the money, the grant assigned for the project. But now the only hurdle was the insurance, and we got the insurance. It was a problem getting insurance because all the insurance companies would say, we'll give you the insurance after you take care of the situation. Well, how are you going to take care of the situation if you can get insurance? So it was like back and forth. Look, the items of the wood, of the plywood, we can correct them fairly quick. By April, for sure, we'll have them ready. The only thing, we're going to do the job twice. We can only do it once, and then once we get the grant, we've got to remove the whole thing and redo the glass front. So if there's no patience among the city to wait for what to be done, then we'll just go ahead and do it. We'll get the permit, we'll redo it.

So have you been awarded the grant based on providing insurance?

Well, no, no. The grant was given, was granted based on the fact that they wanted to, I guess, to facelift the facade of some sort of project. And this wood was there since the hurricane protected the building. It was not meant to begin with, to be permanent, but temporary. But this has not been taken care of, and we've been waiting for the city to, well, like I said, they approved us, they designated, they assigned us a certain number, and they've been asking certain things. The only last item they were requesting, and it took a little longer than anticipated, was insurance for the project itself. The building, but there was no insurance on the, and I think we got it resolved. Do you have that resolved now?

And have you talked to the, sorry, have you talked to the city to see how fast you can proceed now?

No. We just sent this notice from the insurance about two weeks ago. We haven't gotten a response from the city, probably. It takes time. They don't respond to it. Usually from the time we send what they ask, the response. We've got to work with their schedule. But like I said, if we realize the time is in the essence, it's not going to happen. Then we'll do it.

Sir, why did you wait so long to contact your insurance company? We contacted the insurance.

They wouldn't give us the insurance. You said that you didn't contact them until two weeks ago. No. Two weeks ago, we got the policy forever. We just got it, and we applied to many insurance who take it.

That's what I'm getting at. Why it took you so long to find insurance? Finally, finally.

Our interest was money to be the place up, not just to fix it. We've got a lot of schedule of time until we get the money. We can do their job. Like I said before, if we come to a point where we're going to be in violation, we're going to start to get penalties, of course. We get in compliance, which the billing officials said, being in compliance, code is just the minimum. We don't want to be in compliance. What is your... It affects it. I'm sorry. It affects also our ability to rent a place. Sure.

What is your estimated timeline as far as being able to do it the way you want to? Get your grant and do the things that you want to do? About a month. About a month?

We'll finish it up. The job itself shouldn't take more than a week. Or 30s a month?

I don't know if there's much. At 35 days, yeah. Okay. All right. Any other questions from the board? Can I get a motion?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before April 30, 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. Can I get a second?

Second. Do you have any in favor? Aye.

Did you say April 30th or April 3rd?

30th. 30th.

Okay. We just didn't hear it clearly.

I heard 3rd. Thank you.

The correct date is April 30th. Thank you. May I have them all in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, sir. Next case, 311, case 47-26, fine respondents, Northwest Properties, LLC at 1235 Nicholson Street in violation of code for trailer parking and residential rental business tax receipt and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that? Inspector Dixon, you have the floor.

Afternoon, board. Inspector Dixon, code compliance inspector for the city of Clearwater. This is case 47-26 for 1235 Nicholson Street. There's two violations at this property. One violation of code Section 3-1407A2 for a travel trailer parked between the principal structure and right of way and Section 3-2302 for a life of residential rental business tax receipt. I noticed violations went out in November. I gave them about a month for the BTR and about three weeks to move the travel trailer off the property or behind the fence. I did receive this certified mail in the office. The trailer out in the front yard on the date the notice was issued, and there's still a trailer in the front yard today. There was a BTR at the property in 2003 for something other than residential rental. There's no BTR on file. The utilities are in David Valentine's name, and this is when he turned the utilities on, and they were asking for a lease to turn the utilities on to a rental. A compliance can be met for the travel trailer by removing the travel trailer from the front of the property. The trailer can be placed in the back or side yard provided to be screened by a six-foot-high hedge fence or wall, and it must also be parked on a proof surface. And for the lack of business tax receipt, you can apply and obtain a business tax receipt for the rental. We'll request compliance on it before May 1st and request a fine of $150 per day for the travel trailer violation and a fine of $50 a day for the BTR. I am in contact with the owner. The renters are giving the owner trouble. He says he's going to evict them, and it's going to improve, so here we are.

Excellent. Any questions from the board? I believe that would be two separate motions, one for the BTR and one for the other violation. I see a legal counsel nodding his head, so can I get a motion on the BTR, please?

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

Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Can I get a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation on or before May 1st, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day.

This is for the BTR, so that would be $50 per day.

I was doing the travel trailer. I'm sorry. That's okay.

You're doing the travel trailer first.

There you go. Okay. That was in order.

Very good. Thank you. You're making the thing. Thank you.

Yes. $150. I'm going to start that over.

Okay.

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.

Do we have a second? Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. All right. Opposed? Motion carries. Can I get a motion on the – do we need to do a first motion on the second violation as well? I think so. I'm thinking how we did it.

Separate, right?

Yeah, I would – separate would be appropriate.

All right.

For the second violation of the business tax receipt, may I get a first motion, please?

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

Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. I have a second motion.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before May 1, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $50 per day per violation for each day. Each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Our next case is 313, Case 49-26, Fine Respondents, Good Shepherd Boulevard, LLC at 1746 Dr. Street in violation of code for exterior storage. An issue in order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that? Yep. Sir, can you step forward to the microphone and share your name and address with us? Alphick Solomon, 1746, please.

One more time, I'm sorry, your name?

Alphick Solomon. T-A-W-F-I-K, and that's named Solomon, S-O-L-I-M-A-N.

Were you sworn in, sir? Were you sworn in? Did you take the oath? Yeah. When you got back?

No. Oh, sorry. I am representative of the owner of the property.

That's okay. I just need to swear you in. Yeah. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth throughout your entire testimony?

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Step up to the microphone a little bit. Thank you. Thank you. For its first time. All right. That's okay.

Sir, do you admit or deny the violation? Yeah. Do you admit the violation? Do you admit or deny the violation? Deny. Okay. We cleared it already. All right. Sir, if you'd care to have a step back, we'll hear from the inspector.

Good afternoon, Board. Hi. I'm McCazin, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is case number 49-26 for 1746 Drew Street. There's one violation here for Code Section 3-1502, F1, and F2 for exterior storage. It's the date that this violation was sent out, compliance date, and we did get the certified mail receipt back. And I had been in contact with the owner. Maybe there was some miscommunication over the past week or so, but you'll see with the photos. Back in November, we went out to this property. You might remember this one. They had the hauling trailer running as a food truck that was hooked up to the plumbing electric out front. That was taken care of. But if you remember from those other photos, there were some items being stored outdoors. There were a picker for an engine, some glass, barrels, buckets, all sorts of items. A little ductwork building. There was some kitchen equipment being stored outdoors. It'll work for me. If these are not clear enough, let me know, but it looks like the PowerPoint's struggling a little bit. There was kitchen equipment being stored outdoors. I went back after the compliance date. This was in January. After the compliance date, similar items were still out. I believe this time I hadn't been in contact with the owner yet, but after this date, we did get in contact and the property was cleaned up. But when I went back the other day, or just today, this morning on the 25th, a lot of the bakery equipment was then, again, being stored outdoors. There's a bunch of pipes from the plumbing that was ripped up are being stored underneath the black truck in the rear. And then there's a few items around the dumpster, like a old bucket, old large rain bucket, and a pallet. I'm sorry, those are small. Let's see if this, sorry, it's still not catching up. So I did try calling the owner again. I left a message just saying, hey, we just need to clean up these few items, but we're still not completely there. So compliance being met for the exterior storage by moving from the grounds of the property, all items not meant for outdoor use, and ensuring all items meant to be thrown out are placed inside the dumpster. And I'm requesting compliance on it before April 25th, 2026, or a fine of $150 per day for violation for each date of violations. Any questions?

And the pictures you showed us, they were smaller, and I couldn't quite make out the date. You showed us pictures from today showing noncompliance?

I'll try it, see if it'll load in. So it looks like they're doing good now. This is the same bakery equipment that I've asked to be put inside before. It was inside, and then it made its way back outside. I believe it's a bedrock, bread racks, because it's a bakery.

Yeah, and I'm seeing a date of 325 on that. Yeah, that was just more.

And these were the pipes. I asked them before to please remove these from the grounds of the property, not storm underneath the truck. And then anything around the dumpster has to make its way into the store. There's a little bit left to do. It's definitely improved.

And your compliance date is 425. Yes.

Can I get a Purdue oil?

The pictures say it all.

What's that?

The pictures say it all.

Yeah, exactly. Do you want to speak with the gentleman? Yes, please.

What can you tell us about this?

What are we going to do about this? It's just the owner. He's out of state right now. And this is rented properties. So they maybe know that he's out of state. Because of this, they are doing that. But before, a couple of days ago, I went myself, I go there and check it. There was nothing like that before. So it's maybe easy to do it because he is not here right now. He will be here next week. Okay. So we will take care of that.

Excellent. Yeah. Thank you very much. You're welcome. All right. Can I get a first motion unless somebody else has questions? First motion, please.

Move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. I have a second.

Thank you. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Can I get a second motion?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation on or before. What was our date, Daniel? I'm sorry.

April 25th, 2026.

Thank you. April 25th, 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.

I have a second. I have a second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Next case, 3.15, case 51-26. Fine respondents, Del Twain Homes at 3087 Cherry Lane in violation of code for development code violation. An issue in order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Yes, sir. Would you come forward and state your name and address?

Del Twain Homes. My address is 3087 Cherry Lane, Clearwater, Florida 33759.

Thank you. And you're the owner of the property? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. We will – sir, do you – do we admit or deny now or –? Yes. Do it now. All right. Sir, do you admit or deny the violation? Deny. All right. If you'll have a seat, we're going to hear from the inspector, then we'll have you back up. Thank you.

Good afternoon, board. John Stevens, co-compliant inspector for the city of Clearwater. Again, this is case number 51-26, reference 3087 Cherry Lane. And, again, this is a zoning violation, so this is something that you guys typically don't see that often, so it's got a couple little different things inside of it. So we're using two code sections here for one violation on this property. We have Section 1-104B, which is the development code violation. You can see it's a description here. It talks about no building structure, water, or land should be used or occupied, and no building structure or land should be developed unless in conformity with all the provisions of the zoning district in which it is located, all applicable regulations, and all development approvals. Code Section 6-102C for nonconforming structures. A nonconforming structure shall not be altered, enlarged, or changed in any way that increases its nonconformity. Any structure or site improvement may, however, be altered to decrease its nonconformity. So what we're talking about in this case, this property is currently zoned as what's called LMDR, or low-medium density residential. So there are certain standards in there when you build a property. It can only be built a certain way. LMDR properties have a max height requirement of 30 feet. This building is already over the 30-foot max, but it was annexed into the city. So this was previously built in the county, and it was okay when it was built in the county. But now that it's inside of the city, even though we basically say it's a legal nonconformity, as far as we're not going to say you have to do something to your building to make it into that conformity, we say that you can't do anything that will make your nonconformity more or larger. So for this property, we're going to be talking about things that have been added on to the roof structure that is increasing that nonconformity. So a notice of violation was mailed and posted on December 30th for the compliance date of January 31st of this year, and the certified mail was signed for on January 23rd of this year. This is a picture of 387 Cherry Lane from Google Maps from back in February of 25. And you can see it's quite a large structure there, but if you look at the very top of the structure, basically up here, that's basically like a mechanical room or something like that for the elevator, I believe it is, or whatnot, but there's nothing else here on the top of it. This was actually brought to my attention by our department director, Lauren Matzke, as these end up popping up on top of there. And she happened to notice it and notified me of it. So this was as December 30th of last year when I actually sent out the violations. And as you can see, there were several, I guess you'd call them awnings or almost like a pergola or something like that attached to the roof structure with some fans, and it looks like there's a hot tub and several other things that are up there. This was as of February 2nd after I talked to Mr. Holmes on the phone and after he had gotten the notice of the violation, nothing has changed there. And then this, as of yesterday, on the right, March 24th, again, nothing has changed. When I talked to Mr. Holmes on the phone, he was very cooperative. I think he wants to try to figure out some way to deal with this, and I directed him towards our zoning department, and we have somebody here from zoning to talk about this as this case moves forward. So compliance can be met for both code sections by basically removing the added structures from the rooftop. Since it's a legal nonconforming structure and you can't increase that nonconformity, there wouldn't be a permit that would be issued for this or any type of variance, I think, that would be granted if I'm understanding things correctly from the zoning department. So we are requesting compliance by April 25th of this year or a fine of $250 a day for each day that the violation continues to exist.

Thank you, sir. I want to hear from the gentleman from zoning regarding this. What do you think you'll offer?

Good afternoon, board and members of the board. Ted Kozak, planning development and planning manager. The case you have in front of you, what's been said is true. It's in the LMDR zoning district. All structures are map capped of 30 feet in that zoning district. It's probably my understanding that the house was under construction and built and then annexed to the city to receive city services because that's our way to attract people into the city. So I pulled the old – not that old. It was built in 2012. Well, so the plans of the house, that looks like it's 45 feet to the flat roof, 51, 10 to the top of a – I think that projection is a stair because looking at the floor plan. So it's like a nine feet higher than – so the building itself is 15 feet over the maximum. The – now structures on the roof are about 12 feet – 22 feet higher than the maximum of the zoning district. So there is no path to request. There was a case requested in our portal yesterday for flexibility for height, which I closed today because you can't ask for that. So there is no path forward. The structures need to be removed. The only path forward in the future would be maybe ground-mounted things like this, but there's nothing that can be placed on the roof that could be legalized.

Thank you. Mr. Holmes? So what about all of this?

Yeah. I purchased a house in September of last year, and I left the country, and I left some people in charge of doing some stuff to it. We had no clue, or I had no clue about what all this stuff, you know, was about. It is extremely hot in Florida, of course, and there's no way that I could put anything up there that would shade the roof. And we did that top part that comes – it's like a part of – it's on the side of the elevator shaft, but those are the stairs that go up to the roof, and they're about nine – it's about nine feet, that extra little spot. And those were built – those perglars were built the same height as that just for, you know, just to have something up there for shade. I'm just kind of disappointed because I spent a lot of money for that house, and there's – I'm just trying to find any type of way that I can keep them up there. It did require a couple of cranes to get the stuff up there, and I'm just trying to find out if I have to take them down, what course I have to do to get all of that stuff down from up there.

Okay. Did you understand what the compliance officers were saying and what zoning was saying, that there's no path forward in a way to keep them? Yeah. So that would mean your only resolution is to take them down based on how the code reads. Yeah. Okay? Wasting money. Understood, sir. I'm sorry. We can't help you with that part of it, but it's our job to make sure that things comply with the code and people find a path forward to get things corrected.

I see it says April 25th, because that might happen. It's going to be a lot of work getting those structures down. I'm going to need more time than that. If that's what it's going to be. So I'm going to definitely need more time.

How much time do you think you need to get them now?

I would say 60 to 90 days, because they're bolted to the roof. We have to just, they're just not sitting up there. They're bolted to the structure of the roof. And I'm going to have to get somebody to come back out to assess and see how we get those down, because we can't take them down. We have to take them down in one piece. They can't take all that stuff apart, because it was assembled up there. So it's going to take a little time to get them disassembled and get them down from off the roof.

And one of the percolors that's covering Osana, one of the shades.

Yes, one of them, because it's one long one, and then one of them, which I would like to keep, it just comes right off of that piece that the staircase comes out onto the roof. So I just have one that's coming just over a little bit, maybe 10 feet out. But the one, it's covering a spot, and then the other one is covering just the sitting area.

A question for Mr. Stevens. We're talking about some structural pergolas that were installed in a hot tub. Is that correct?

It looks like a hot tub up there from my view. I can't say 100% that's what it is, but it looks like a hot tub. Okay.

So if there is a hot tub up there, does that need to be removed as well?

That would be a better question, I believe, for something on that one. I don't have the answer to that.

But there's no habitable structures allowed on that roof. That's why I want to advise people when they're building a house, give yourself some leeway. If it's 30 feet high, if this was 30 feet high, you still wouldn't be able to put anything up there. So if it was uncovered and you had nothing, you could leave it as is. But any house over 30 feet, you can't put anything up there because it's habitable.

He could leave the sauna up there.

No. He can't? No, you cannot. That sauna, it has height. So any height, because the height is 45, you can't even add an inch. It's already exceeding. So if you were at 27 feet, you have a 3-foot hot tub, maybe. But you can't cover it, so we tell people, hopefully you're not going to get hot up there because you can't add any kind of cover structure. So that's why I advise people to build in some room to be able to put some sheet structures.

Would it be safe to say that anything that was added post-purchase has to come off that roof?

Based on the permit that I saw, there was only the staircase, and that's it. Nothing else up there. So I'm just going by the roof plans that were in there.

Gotcha. Okay.

Mr. Chair? Yes. If I may, just for the record, the code section that's been cited says that a nonconforming structure shall not be altered, enlarged, or changed in any way that increases its nonconforming. That's what's in fact.

So technically, there shouldn't have been a permit even allowed for the stairs. Say that again.

Is this on? Anything on this permit was there at the time of construction. So you can see the stairway projection. That is allowed. It was there at 9 feet. Okay. But just the entire roof was just stair, empty, kind of everything here, you know, is allowed.

Thank you. All right. So that means that the pergolus and the spa essentially are the items that have to go, but the stairway does not, just for clarification. Okay. Thank you.

And, Mr. Holmes, when you had all this added at the time, you didn't know this.

No, and the spa, I don't see how the spa could be a problem at all because it's only, it sits about this high and it has a top on it and the elevator shaft, I mean, the staircase shaft is up there and then when they built the house, the house has a drainage system for the roof for you to be able to, it had a spa up there already. They took it down. It had an outdoor kitchen. It had a couple of different things up there before I, before me. They, they just took it down before they, before I purchased it because it sat there for, I mean, a couple of years in the trust. So when I purchased it, I had no clue about any of this and I spent probably about $90,000 on the roof alone and that includes the pergolus. You know, so for me to have to take my spa down, like the pergolus, okay, I'll get umbrellas, but I don't see how the spa could cause any threat to anything in that area. I don't have neighbors. I own a parcel next door. I just, it's just very disappointed to me.

Very disappointed. Understood. Unfortunately, our reference is the building code and what the building code states and that's the reference that we're obliged to follow here. So, and per the inspector, it's a, you know, anything that adds any height since it's already over height is a violation of the code. Am I correct, Mr. Stevens?

The staircase is a height. So, yes, that's correct.

I think the only thing that's in there, correct me if I'm wrong, is it does talk about the, like, mechanical roofs for, like, an elevator. That can be allowed, but besides that, that's the only thing.

So the spa cannot be allowed even though it doesn't exceed the height requirement?

That would be correct.

I have a question. Is the $250 correct or is it supposed to be $150 on this?

The $250 is correct.

Any other questions?

Can I get a declaration of violation or a motion?

I move to find the responding violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. I have a second.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Carries. Can I get a second?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before April 25, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $250 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.

Mr. Chairman, before we vote, we have discussed our continuums.

Giving him more time.

Giving him more time. That's going to be brought up. Well, I'm open to the board's recommendation.

I think 60 days is reasonable.

Mr. Holmes, would 60 days be enough?

I would say 90 because it's a lot to disassemble and I have to find a crane company, their schedule. So this is nothing that I can just go do tomorrow or in the next week or the next month. I probably have to call the company that did the purpose and get them to see when they can come out to find the best course to get it disassembled and to get it taken down. So I would ask for at least 90 days. I know by then, definitely, I can definitely have everything taken down by then.

I agree.

I'll do that. All right. Okay. Good. Sounds good to us.

May I have a motion, please? I move. So I'm going to correct the original motion. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before. What would that be? June.

June 23rd.

June 23rd, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $250 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second?

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Holmes. Good luck.

Thank you, board.

Next case, 3.19. Case 55-26. Fine respondents, decade companies, income properties. At 101 Coronado, in violation of code for sidewalk signs, initial order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Yes, sir. Please come forward and state your name and address.

How do you do, y'all?

My name is Keaton Kelly. The address is 101 Coronado Drive, Clearwater Beach, Florida. And what's your relationship with this property? I'm the general manager of the property.

Yes, sir?

My apologies. What item number are we on?

I'm sorry. Did I miss one?

Yeah. You missed 3.19.

Okay. We'll go back to 3.16. Apparently, I overstepped my bounds.

3.19.

Are we on base site for our farmers?

We're on 3.19. Yes. 4.9. Decade companies, income properties. 101 Coronado. Sorry about that. Sir, do you admit or deny? Oh, sorry. Do you admit or deny the violation? I'll deny. All right. Thank you. Oh, we're on 3.16. We're on 3.19. I missed one.

Inspector Burkhardt? Steve Burkhardt, site inspector for the city of Clearwater. The case is in compliance of today. So although the permit has not been active, the signs are removed from the property. So just asking the board for declaration of violation.

Very good. Sir, did you want to come back and just talk about what occurred?

So from our perspective, we're just looking for some more clarification on what's going on here. So I took over as general manager of the property in August of last year. The first violation was in May of 2025. Upon me taking over, we submitted the application for the permit. But, you know, upon that, we had submitted that in late October. In November, we had not still received any communication from that. We received another violation in January of 26. At that point in time, I reached back out to Stephen to clarify what had gone on. We had submitted the application to Ryan Green. Ryan Green is no longer around. So it got lost in translation from there. Once I submitted the application, we still have not gotten a final answer on what was going on. It seems like the violation is in coordination with a sign that is on the corner intersection. My property itself operates under that parcel of land. However, we don't control the parking garage or operate the parking garage that is putting that sign there. So it is the ownership next door that owns that property. They own the property across the street where the entrance to the parking structure is. They're the ones that are putting the sign technically on our land. We're being held responsible for it, even though we don't have any control over that. We've submitted our application for the sidewalk sign that we have that's inside of our parking garage. There's still been some miscommunication on whether we need that or not because it is inside of our parking structure, almost 100 feet away from the actual sidewalk. So really just looking for some clarification further on if we need that application for our sign itself. And then, like I said, the sign on the intersection, we don't have any control over that.

Got you.

But it's on your land?

It is on our land. That is true, according to the parcel. We've had communication with the other property. And we've expressed several times that it can't be there. We were issued that fine. We transferred that fine to them, worked out a deal with them, things like that. But at the same time, the sign is still being put on our land. So from our perspective, from a Coronado, 101 Coronado perspective, that's not our sign. We don't put it there. We understand the situation. But we don't put it there.

All right. Just one second. You say that they paid the fine when you went to them. But what was their reply to keep putting it back?

I don't speak on behalf of them. You know, they continue to put it back.

No.

What did they tell you?

They understood. You know, they understand the situation. It's been a conversation going back between us, you know, repeatedly, obviously, since mid of 2025. And here we are today, and it's still there. Sounded like communication broke down. I would say so. But, you know, so the opening of that building is relatively new. I'm a new general manager. You know, there was communication between all of us. It was a problem that I took over when I got here. I've communicated with them. The person over there is also a new general manager. So just kind of got lost in the shuffle here. I've tried to, you know, apply for the permits for our location and our sign. Once again, looking for clarification on if it's so far away from the sidewalk. Do we even need that for ourselves? But then that sign that is in contest on that corner, we've made it very clear that we continue to not put that sign there and continue to communicate with that other property to make sure that it's not there. But obviously, that's not happening.

Lost in translation.

Inspector, can you offer anything on that?

I can do – I have a PowerPoint presentation. Maybe for clarification, it would help to show some pictures of that. Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

PowerPoint works. Oh, sorry. Oh, so that's at 101 Coronado Drive. That's the address. And I have also – I can show a picture from property appraisal just to give you an idea of the property. That's a little bit – I have it in – so it's a little bit difficult to see. This is the hotel, Peer House 60, where I'm joined by Mr. Manager Hotel. And that's – across the street, that's Devon Drive, that's Parking Street. And that's actually one – so that's the parking structure. And the sign – the sign violation looks here at the corner here in front. So it's from there. Basically, it's adjacent in a better way, including, as possible, all the hotel responsible are for the property and for the – all right. So, again, there's one violation regarding Code Section 3-1806A, Temporary Sign Criterion Limitations, and Code Section 3-1804J, the sidewalk signs without a permit. So, again, one – the first Code Section is regarding the placement of the currently placed section, and it also doesn't have notice of air. It was mailed in January 6th, January 20th. It was mailed January 12th, 26th. So, mail was 36th. The sign state was January 20th. So that's one of the signs. It's placed here on the sidewalk. On the sidewalk, it doesn't leave a pedestrianized sidewalk. So, there's a minimum of four feet clearance necessary. It's the same sign. It just moved here. It was on January 8th. It's at the corner in this section, and that's in a visibility triangle placed there. Also has no permit. The picture is January 8th, 26th. It's placed there. Next to the sidewalk, also doesn't have a – still doesn't have a permit. Back on March 6th of this year, the corner, in a visibility triangle. That picture I took today, as you can see, the sign is gone. There's no sign anymore. It's another angle, same day. So, no sign placed there. Compliance is met. Compliance for the sidewalk sign can be met by removing the sign. For case 55-26, sidewalk sign without a permit, requesting from before April 25th, 20th.

So, you're looking for a declaration of violation?

I'm looking because, as you can see, the pictures of today show no violation. Right. So, the sign is – the case is resolved. That's basically all we're asking for, declaration of violation.

Sir, did you have any other questions?

I guess – you have to be up there.

I guess, you know, just to make our point clear on some of those pictures, there's now the new hotel next door to mine at 40 Devon Drive. They operate that parking structure at 35 Devon Drive. Even though it's on our parcel of land, it's – they're building their – it's known, and as far as it works.

So, according to a property appraiser, the current owner is still Decade Company's income. So, that's basically the property. Whoever haunts the sign is actually Irriban for the case. The property are responsible to maintain the property and move the signage if there's one place.

I guess your task, sir, is to figure out how to get them to quit putting the sign there because it's on your property.

Mr. Chair, may I also – maybe for the benefit of our – the reason why we seek a declaration of violation is because that establishes the predicate to bring back a repeat violation case. In a repeat violation case, normally the city has to give time for the person to correct the violation before they come to the board and seek a fine. But if it's a repeat violation, the city can come to the board immediately and seek a fine from the date of the notice of violation. Whereas, on the first instance, we come to the board, the board imposes a future deadline with a repeat violation, the board can backdate to that notice of violation. So, just explaining that so that we're all clear in terms of what the declaration of violation actually does legally.

Thank you.

Board, do you have any questions? Can I get a declaration, please?

I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist.

Do you have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you, sir. Go back and pick up case 3.16, which is case 52-26, fine respondent's Bayside Arbors, XII LLC. At 2729 Seville Boulevard in violation of code for fences and issue an order with the compliance deadline and find if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Inspector Stevens?

Actually, board, this one is going to be a declaration of violation as well. They brought it into compliance yesterday.

All right. Any questions from the declaration, please?

I move to find the respondent that was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day. The violation continues to exist.

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Thank you, John. Thank you. Board, we are two hours and 22 minutes into our meeting. I saw counsel take a break. Does anybody else want a break? Yes. All right. At least a five-minute break. Shall we take a five-minute break?

Okay.

We're adjourned for five minutes. Principal code enforcement board is now back in session. All right. I believe going through we have a number here that were continued and withdrawn. And unless I've overlooked another one, our next case is 3.30, case 72-26. Fine respondents Wagner, Larry, H-T-R-E at 643 Mandalay Avenue in violation of code for sidewalk signs in the issue of order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Burkhardt, the floor?

Good afternoon, board. Stephen Burkhardt, sign inspector for sleep order. The case is in compliance as of today, so I'm asking just for the question. Sweet.

Anybody? Any questions? All right. Go ahead.

She wants me. I'll do it. Go ahead. There you go, Chelsea. 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 of the violation that continues to be approved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye.

All opposed?

Motion carries.

Good one, Chelsea. All right.

If I remember correctly, Madam Secretary, we do all our affidavits in compliance as one group. All right. So I will accept a motion to include affidavits 4.1.1 through 4.1 point – I'm going to go through 4.1.10 because we have another case on page 5 listed after that that doesn't have – oh, there it is, 4.2. Okay. Can I get a motion to accept affidavits 4.1.1 through 4.1.10 accepted – affidavits of compliance accepted?

I move to accept the affidavits of compliance as listed.

I'll second it.

All in favor?

Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right. Down to bottom of page 5, 4.2, case 142-25, accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondent Sugar Factory, LLC, at 1844 Drew Street for exterior surfaces, door and window openings, roof maintenance, and exterior storage. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Where are we? Well, this is an affidavit of noncompliance, so there's no one here to speak on it.

I will accept the motion. I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that poses 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.

I'll second it.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right. Moving down, the remainder of these in this area were withdrawn. Under other board action, 5.1 has been handled. The next action we have is election of chair.

I would like to nominate Bob Kenney to be the chair.

I'll second. Greatly accepted. Anybody else want a nomination? We need to nominate any other nominations for chair.

We don't want that job.

All right. I guess we vote on that and we go to vice chair. Is that how we do that? Yes, sir. All right. All in favor of me being reelected or elected as chair?

Yes. Yes.

All opposed? Thank you very much. May I have nominations for vice chair, please? I will submit a nomination for Mr. Engel as vice chair. I'll second it. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other nominations? Anybody else like to be vice chair? Apparently not. First day. I'm sorry?

I said first day. I'm not going to.

I'm going to step in at that good line, Chelsea. All those in favor of Mr. Engel being vice chair?

Aye.

Aye. All opposed? Mr. Carey. Thank you. Thank you. Congratulations, Mr. Engel. And congratulations to you, Mr. Cain. Thank you for your confidence. You too, Mr. Chair. Moving on, next item would be a nuisance abatement lien filings. Case number 6.3, Case 89-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Petrillo, Phillip Benjamin, TRE, and B&G Land Trust at 202 Glenwood Avenue for lot clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Do you want to hear to speak on that? Yes, sir. Come forward and state your name and address, please.

This is Phillip Petrillo, P-E-T-R-I-L-L-O, address 217 Harrison Avenue, Clearwater, or Bel Air Beach.

Thank you, sir. And this is a nuisance abatement lien, so we're not doing our typical motions of violation. We're simply considering a nuisance abatement lien, correct?

Yes. I would just have the inspector go through.

Yeah, let's have Mr. Kasman give us some information, and we'll ask you to come back up. All right. Sorry about that. We're ready.

All right. Good afternoon again, Board. Daniel Kasman, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is 202 North Glenwood Avenue. It's for a nuisance abatement, case number 89-26. One violation here for Code Section 3-1503, B5A, B8 for lot clearing. This is a date of notice of violation with County Compliance State, and the date of the posting was done on the same day as a notice of violation. This is 202 North Glenwood Avenue. For all intents and purposes, the main yard is well kept. But really what I'm concerned with is it's adjacent to Drew Street, and the sidewalk on that side, and then a little bit of the sidewalk along Glenwood needs some work. This was the date of the posting on the 24th. This is a little bit of the sidewalk on the Glenwood side that just needs some clearing back and forth so people aren't tripping over the plants or tripping over the leaves. It's a little bit obscured with some overgrowth and debris. But the really major concern is over here on Drew Street. Some of this grass here, this moody grass, Fakahatchi grass, was cut back. I think that's what they thought was the main area of concern. But really, as we look at other pictures, it's the sidewalk has been almost half taken over by just debris and greenery growing from the adjoining property. If you see here, really that sidewalk should be over about a half a foot. We're losing sidewalk there. It's a danger for pedestrians and bicyclists. There's a lot of leaves, debris on that sidewalk as well that is slippery, and I'd just like that cleared and removed. This was after the compliance date on the 9th. Same situation on the Glenwood side, and this is a better look of that area on the other side. As you can see, the sidewalk is being slowly consumed by the leaves and debris and the greenery coming out from the side. Again, it would just all need to be chopped back, bagged up, removed, so we can have clear sidewalks. This is going looking eastbound on Drew Street. Again, when by the day, this little section is still not to be maintained. And again, same story on this side. You just really need all that bagged up, removed, cut back. You'd probably be good for another month or so before you had to do a gauge clearance. So, compliance, we have for lock clearing by cutting back the greenery and removing all debris from the adjacent sidewalks so they're completely unimpeded. I'm requesting compliance on it before five days from the date the Lord renders its order.

Thank you. All right. Council, would we be out of order to hear from the property owner?

I have no objection.

Okay. Sir?

Yep.

I'd just like to hear what he has to say. I know this is not your typical declaration of violence. That's fine. The gentleman's here, so I'd like to give him the opportunity to speak with us.

We're totally in the dark on this one. Didn't realize there was an issue with the sidewalk at all. He'll be taken care of immediately. Great. Thank you very much. Awesome. Okay.

Short and sweet. I love it. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. So, here's the question. If you pass what they're asking for, then you're not giving him time to clean it?

Just a month, sir. Got it.

If you're asking, if you're going to give him some additional time, that's it. I mean, so I don't know how the city's position is.

Well, that's awfully hard to read. Do you need more time than five days? Well, hang on a second. Let's, I'm sorry, I'm going to step on your toes. I understand. We're in a different area here in terms of a declaration of violation, and I need, before I ask that question, if you don't mind, I'd like to see what the inspector has there.

It was the typical requesting compliance on it before or five days from the date you guys run your order. Typically, that takes about two weeks, so really, in all real serious, all realistic time frame, he's still got about two weeks, 14 days to clean up, and if he does it before that time frame, I have no need to exercise that board order in any way, shape, or form.

Yeah. Okay. Is that satisfactory?

Sorry, I didn't want to step on you. I just didn't understand initially. Sorry. I just hired a landscaper.

It took me two months to get the guy. You know, they're pretty backed up. Yeah. So can I have a month, 30 days?

Are you okay with that?

Sarah Green, co-combines manager. What we would really request is to keep our normal maintenance, and if he stays in contact with us and the inspector, we're happy to work with him. We don't have to exercise our right to abate immediately following obtaining the payment order.

All right. So we'll go with a standard motion, but stay in touch with Mr. Kasman there. I think it'll sort out all right. Right. All right. Thank you. I'll let you know what it's said.

All right.

Any other questions? So it's your normal motion.

Yeah. I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days and stay in touch with Mr. Kasman 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 the costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right. Number 6.4, case 90-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents. Please. Von Byrne, Don Marston, Revital Trust, Don Marston, Von Byrne's TRE at 1535 Gulf Bay Boulevard for inoperative vehicle, initial order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this? Yep, sir. Please come forward and state your name and address in relation to the property. Good day, sir.

Good afternoon. Sirs. My name is Vico Lawson. I reside at 974 Park Street, Clearwater. And this is Mr. Don Marston Von Byrne's, who resides at 3 Reserve Boulevard in Clearwater. And this is regarding 1535 Gulf Bay Boulevard. Are you representing? Indeed. Yes, correct. I'm representing Mr. Von Byrne's. Okay.

Okay. Okay. How about if we hear from the inspector and look at this, and then we'll give you an opportunity to give us an idea of what's going on. Okay? Thanks. Inspector.

Vicki Sutteth of the City of Clearwater. Code inspector, this is case 902-26 for 1535 Gulf Bay Boulevard. There is one violation here. Code section 3-1503B6 for inoperable vehicles. There are several of them on the property. Notice of violation was posted and mailed on March 10th of 2026, but the compliance date of March 20th of 2026, the certified mail was not received. This is a picture of the posting on March 10th, one for the hearing and one for the inoperable vehicles. This vehicle, when I went out there this morning, which you will see the picture, this one did have an expired tag on it of 1125, but this vehicle does now have a current tag, but it has flat tires. This picture was also, this one was on February 7th, expired tag. A trailer on the property, expired tag. This is the semi-trailer that has the broken legs on it that's being held up by a stack of pallets. There's another picture of it. There's the pallets that are holding it up. This is a boot truck on the property that has an expired tag. This is, again, this morning, expired tag. There's a box truck on the property that still has an expired tag. Compliance can be met for the unoperable vehicles by removing all vehicles from the property or make repairs so that vehicles are roadworthy, as well as display a current license plate as assigned to each of the vehicles. Requesting compliance within five days after the board enters its order.

Thank you, ma'am. Sir, what would you like to share with us about this?

So we're happy to report that all the registrations are paid for current. The decals are attached to the registrations on all vehicles. The tires are inflated in all vehicles. And the only item that where we – while the semi-trailer is still operable, we recognize the need to repair the supporting structure. And so we believe that if we could be provided a month to complete that, that would be helpful.

Okay. So you purchased the registrations, and have you put the stickers on all the vehicles? Correct. All right. So what about the one with the flat tires?

The tires are now inflated.

Okay. With those conditions, inspector, does that – does that – if that is – once that's verified, does that bring everything except the large trailer into compliance?

If everything has tires, then yes, that would be, but the violation still exists because it was in my trailer. Got you.

Got you. So if we – if we issue a compliance, then – and those have already in compliance – if we issue the order and these things are in compliance, the vehicles that were mentioned outside of the trailer, if those are in compliance, then that goes away, but we still have the issues with the trailer.

It's one violation, and it includes all of those – so even if they brought four of them in compliance, it's a violation. There's no separation of them.

Understood. I'm just – I'm trying to think with this in terms of bringing everything into compliance in terms of what's purportedly done and what remains to be done. I was there this morning.

It was violation, so I don't know.

Like a last-minute, let's get it done and get out of trouble thing, which is great. So the – if those – if those are the facts, then the remaining question is the city is asking for five days, and the owner of the property is asking for 30 days regarding the trailer. Do we have any questions or comments or anything anybody would care to offer about this?

I just have a question. Do you have a copy of the receipts for the tags and stuff?

I believe Mr. Von Burns has a screenshot that he presented to me. Now, I do have pictures of the decals attached to all of the tags on my phone that Mr. Von Burns provided, and I'm happy to email them over or present them to you on my phone. And also the inflated tires, all of that is documented. Okay.

All right. Comments, questions? What's the plan for the trailer?

So Mr. Von Burns just responded to fix it. I'm not sure how specific you would like to get. I'm not sure what the plan is. Just repair it.

How much time does he need?

Excuse me?

How much time would he need to get it repaired?

30 days.

Let me just kick this down, 30 days.

If he gets a compliance, then, you know, if it's not in compliance. Inspector, do you have anything to offer, any disagreement with giving them 30 days so they get the trailer taken care of as well?

It's not up to me. It already brought this, and it was supposed to have been fixed. Right. And then we gave them two months, and now there we are again. Understood.

I'm just going to give you the opportunity to share your viewpoint with us. Mr. Chair?

Yes, sir. If I may. This case was brought before, if the board recalls, and the city had a different theory of the violation with regard to the trailer being used for storage. Right. That was contested at the time, and we decided to withdraw the theory based on storage and focus more on the nuisance aspects of the inoperable vehicle, the nuisance side of it, instead of the zoning storage side. So, if the trailer is repaired, obviously, that would cure the nuisance aspects that we've presented now. Whether or not that has some other issue in terms of long-term storage and parking there, those would be separate issues that the city would have to address separately through a new case and new conversations with the property owner. But for now, we withdrew all that, and we focused entirely on the inoperable vehicle aspects of this situation. And we don't have any objection to 30 days.

Does anybody else have an objection to 30 days?

My only question on that was, we offered 30 days, and everything got done this morning, or after this morning. So, there were 29 days that nothing was done. So, maybe we should just say two weeks.

If I may, it was 10 days, I believe, from the date of the notice. I can verify that now.

Oh, that you received in the mail?

It was received on March 10. It was to be corrected by March 20th. It is March 25th today. So, it's been 15 days.

Okay. That was when we had ruled on it. That's what I was thinking. Well, it's up to everybody, then.

I don't mind 30. All right. All right. Can I have a motion, please? I moved to page 7, right? I moved to enter an order of finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within 30 days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property, to abate and maintain the nuisance, and charge the respondent with the reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property. If cost, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. If there's nothing else, I believe we are adjourned. Here we go.