Municipal Code Enforcement Board on 2026-04-22 1:30 PM - Apr 22, 2026

Board is going to order. We're good. Okay. Looking at our videographer back there just making some kind of motions and I wanted to make sure we're good to go. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Please be seated. Agendas of today's meeting are on the wall at the entrance of 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 consists, I'll give you that again, the Board considers new members, new business items in two parts. First, the violation, and then affirmative relief. Former rules of evidence do not apply. Each site is limited to 15 minutes. The Board may grant additional time. All proceedings will be conducted in a calm, civil manner. Individuals who conduct themselves otherwise will be asked to leave. If necessary, they will be escorted from the chambers. Now I ask all who plan to speak, 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. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next on the agenda are new business items. Under our new business items, 3.1 has been withdrawn. 3.2 has been withdrawn. 3.3 has been withdrawn. 3.4, continued for March, is going to continue to May 27th. 3.5, continued for March 25th, is going to be continued to May 27th. 3.6 is going to be continued to May 27th. Our first case up to listen to is 3.7, case 74-26, fine respondents Juan Avella at 2104 Brigadoon Drive in violation of code for clean roof and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if the appliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that matter? Inspector, you have the floor. Good afternoon, board. Inspector Daniels, case number, Inspector for the City of Clearwater, case number 74-26, this is for address 2104 Brigadoon Drive. It's one violation at this residence for code section 3-1502D.3 for roof maintenance. The notice of violation was sent out at April 18th, 2025 with a compliance date of May 21st, 2025. Certified mail was received April 29th, 2025. There go the pictures from the initial inspection, leaves, the gutters are growing trees out of them. This was after the compliance date, this was the front, and then I was out there this morning and they're still there, and the back is just still growing weeds out of the gutters. Compliance can be met for roof maintenance by maintaining the roof in a clean, mildew-free condition and kept free of trash, loose shangles, debris, and other elements, including grass, weeds, and tarps, as well as anything that is not a permanent part of the building or a functional element of its mechanical or electrical system. So, recommendations for the roof maintenance requesting compliance on or before June 1st, 2026 or a fine of $150 per day per violation if compliance is not met. Thank you. Board, do you have any questions? Have you spoken with the owner? No, sir. Have you attempted to speak with the owner? Yes. Okay. No response? No response. All right. Any other questions from the board? No. May I have a first motion? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation. What was the date there, please? June 1st. June 1st, thank you. Respondent to correct the violations on or before June 1st. 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. Sorry? Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Our next case, 3.8, has been withdrawn. Case 3.9, case 76-26, fine respondents Malise Enterprises Incorporated at 1004 South Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue in violation of code for permits and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Reese, you have the floor. Good afternoon, code board. I'm Inspector Kat Reese, Inspector of the City of Clearwater. This is going to be for 1004 Martin Luther King Jr. South Avenue. This is for case 76-26, and it's going to be for one violation for permits required. This violation is specifically for the permit for the building for the rafters framing roof interior remodel to include electric, plumbing, drywall, subpoor, and removal of window. There are multiple notice of violations that have gone out. The initial one was sent May of 2024, and the last one sent October of 2025. Affidavit of posting was posted on 6-3 of 24. This is going to be on South Martin Luther King, just south of Druid Road, and this was the inspection pictures from the previous inspector who started the case of the work that was being done there. On a later date, PCCLB contacted the inspector to advise that they were doing work in the interior, so it was a little bit after the initial inspection that they went back out and saw that more work was being done. Still on the outside, and this is in the inside, complete remodel, and I have been in contact with the property owner for this property many times. So to elaborate on that, he wants to do a lot with the property, and he keeps hiring contractors to move forward, but then pulls. So as of today, we do have a permit that is requiring more additional information to have an issued permit. It cannot get issued until those revisions are met, and that is why I'm still bringing it here today because it's not an active permit, and I don't want to... I want to be able to set a date of completion with inspections because that is the point of the permits, you know, after all. And here's just one of the letters from one of the previous contractors that voided out their contracts for this job as well as another. This is all the contact I've had with a lot of contractors or engineers, either one, and again, from another contractor where he's going a different direction, and that's basically what each conversation has been. The plan, they advise me what it is, and then they say, we're pulling, or he's going another route. So at this point, the last time I spoke with an architect, he assured me there would be a permit in that he's now gone with someone new who has pulled this permit. So compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections, requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before May 22nd of 2026, and the completion of the permit six months from issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. Any questions? It's been going on how long? About two years now? Two years. Do we have any? Is that typical? Is it? We've just been really... There's been a lot, you know, COVID, well, COVID was well passed at this point, but I mean, there was a break of inspectors in the department, so if I, it would only be a speculation of mine as to why it's at, but I did take it on immediately from getting, you know, coming on board, and I have been in contact with the property owner, but he just, and he understands. Like, yeah, I told him it's, we've got to get something set and completed at this point, and I've worked with him as much as I possibly can. He starts to get a permit and then pulls out, or does he? Right. So the last, like, if I go back, let me go back here real quick. So the initial permit that was pulled in 2024 was voided out by the contractor and then again by another contractor, these are void letters, and they have to send those so that way that takes a liability off the contractor as to why this was not completed. Is there a stop work order on the property? That it was, this was all based on a stop work order for the work being done without a permit. But then you keep finding more work is being done even though there's a stop work order on it? He has stopped now because I know he has understood that the building needs a whole lot more work than what he thought after speaking to professionals. I don't know if it's a money thing. I don't really want to speak for him. Yeah. You know, but we have high hopes here. He's got a permit in, let's just, but he's technically in violation until there's an active permit and it is completed. Any other questions? What's the compliance date they're seeking? I'm sorry? What's the compliance date they're seeking? It's going to be six months from the date of issuance. So I'm giving him, I'm requesting for May, for May 22nd to have an issue permit and six months for completion. Question. Based on what you've seen, do you think that permit issuance, this may be a question for the building department if they're familiar with it, if that compliance date is realistic in terms of what they've submitted? I'm not, I know this has been a long case and I'm not advocating necessarily giving them more time. I'm just thinking in terms of where they are in the process and are they going to actually get a permit issued by then. Getting a permit issued, they just submitted the plans the other day. So, you know, they waited until the last minute to submit those plans. I really couldn't speak on it without reviewing those or having everyone review that. But it is on my discretion that even once the permit is active, if, you know, they're having issues getting the permit completed, they at least have the active permit. If I'm seeing that they're having inspections, they're passing or they're working to pass, then, because that's really ultimately what we want is to make sure everything's up to code. That's the whole point of the permit. Okay, and you're asking for compliance data? To issue the permit May 22nd. I have not heard from the new contractor to really give much more time than that. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? I have a first motion, please. I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. I have a second motion, please. I move to enter in an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before May 22nd, 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? Thank you. Yes. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. The next case is 3.10 on our agenda. Case 77-26, fine respondents, Malise Enterprises, incorporated at 1004 South Martin Luther King Avenue in violation of code for permits, and issued an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is this not the same address? It is the same address, so this will be a bit quicker because it's going to be basically the same talk. Well, I believe, thank you. Yes. I believe I've already asked if there was anyone here to speak on this case. I know we had a late arrival. I just want to make sure we didn't miss somebody. Okay. Inspector, you have the floor. Okay. Inspector Cat Reis, this is going to be for case 77-26 at 1004 South Martin Luther King, June Avenue. It's going to be also for permits required. This is specifically to repaving and striping of the parking lot. This was also on about the same date. It was June of 2024. The final notice being sent March 5th of 2026, and I did have to post for this specific violation to the property. There's the location of the property again, and that's for the posting. And this is what the property looked like March of 2023 as far as the pavement goes. And this is in 2025 and what it looks, you know, February 2025 on Google. This was the inspector's photos of the initial inspection where it was repaved and re-striped. I do, this permit that was pulled, well, it also, I did quickly look to see if it did include this in it, and it did. So hopefully if they get everything submitted, they can come into compliance for this as well. Compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections. Request of compliance by obtaining a permit on or before May 22nd, 2026, and completion of permit six months from the issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. Thank you. Board, do you have any questions? Is that a commercial zoning? Yes, it is. No further questions. Any other questions? May I have a first motion, please? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation on or before May 22nd, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of excuse me, did you say April or May? May. Oh, sorry. Okay. The board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next case, 3.11. Case 78-26 find respondents A.A. Torres-Pavan at 1450 Franklin Street in violation of code for permits and issue an order with a compliance deadline and find if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Reese, you have the floor. Hey, I'm Inspector Kat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is going to be for 1450 Franklin Street Case Number 78-26. It's one violation here for permits required, specifically permit required for the asphalt surfacing completed on the property. First notice, oh, I apologize for that. That should say 2022. I totally forgot to fix that. The first notice went out January 22nd of 2022, with my final notice being sent November 21st of 2025. Certified mail was signed on my notice from November 10th of 2025. This is going to be just northeast of Gulf to Bay, right off of Franklin Street. So this is a complex residential apartments. And this is what the property looked like on Google February of 2021. And this is it in February of 2025. This was also the initial pictures of the initial inspector. She did have communication with him per the notes May of 2022. And they advised that they were going to work on getting a survey to come in compliance. Then when I took over the case, I did speak with somebody in December of 2025. Our conversation was a lot different. He doesn't agree that something so minuscule needs to be in compliance. And I've not heard from him again. Compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before May 22nd, 2026 and completion of the permit six months from the issuance of the permit. If the violation continues to exist and pose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. I understand from what you're telling us that work was done without a permit and at some point with a previous inspector. Was that Nilda? Yes, it was. How is Nilda? Oh, I think she's doing pretty good. I hear from other people that have spoken with her. She's enjoying retirement I would imagine. Good for her. She earned it. And then at some point you picked up the case and even though they indicated to her they would take care of it and now they're getting a different, kind of a different idea from them. Yes. Okay. All right. Have you spoken with them recently? No, not since December. I would imagine he has realized it's a bit more complicated than just getting the permit because it is issues with the right-of-way you have to it has to go through multiple departments and a lot of people don't understand that but there is importance to each one of those departments approval. Sure. All right. Any questions from the board? May I have a reverse motion please? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second? Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion please? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before May 22nd, 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? Motion carries. Chair, I'm sorry. The next item 3.12 is the same address it's a different case but the same address is 3.21 if we could hear those back to back. All right. So we'll do 3.12 first and then 3.21 to not confuse you. All right. Thank you. I don't know how they got separated. I'm sorry about that. So we'll hear them sequentially. Yes. All right. Thank you. All right. Our next case 7.9-26 fine respondents and please forgive me if I butcher somebody's name here. Alexander Gabrychik and Shezhana Gabrychik at 1623 Windsor in violation of code for permits and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? No? All right. Inspector Reese, you have the floor. Okay. I'm Inspector Pat Reyes with the City of Clearwater. This is going to be for 1623 Windsor Place Case 79-26. It's going to be for permits required is the violation. Specifically, permit required for the screen patios that were installed for the property. First notice of violation was sent October 2023 and the final was sent March 5th of 2026. I posted to the property on March 6th of 2026 and this is going to be just north of Souvenir Drive pretty far south of Union. So here's a Google photo of the property February of 2019 where you can see in this red box it's just a balcony on the second level and it's open at the bottom. And this is the Google photo August of 2022. So I have had communication with this tenant. He is advised that he has been having financial issues. I extended him multiple times. I said I need some progress. Show me a survey and we can go to the next step. But there has been no progress towards coming to compliance. And I advised him he could come here and ask the board for what realistic time he thinks he needs. But I'm surprised he's not here. So compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on and before May 22nd, 2026 and completion of the permit six months from issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist and pose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. Thank you. Board, do you have any questions? The person you talk to is the owner? No, but he has in essence advised the owner. He's not in this state. He has my number as well. I've not heard back from any of them. And the owner was sent notice. I'm sorry? The owner was sent notice. The notice has to legally go to what is listed in property appraisers. So yes. And it has been posted to the property. Any other questions? May I have a first motion, please? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. May I have a second motion? Please. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before May 22, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may offer a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. For our secretary's request, we're going to jump down to agenda item 3.21, case 88-26, on respondents Alexander Gabrychik and Snezhana Gabrychik at 1623 Windsor Place, in violation of code for permits and issue an order with the compliance deadline and final compliance is not met. I don't believe we have anybody here to speak on this, so Inspector Reishi on the floor. Hey, I'm Inspector Cat Reis, City of Clearwater. This is for 1623 Windsor Place, case number 88-26. This is going to be for one violation permits required specifically for the above-ground pool installed on the property. The first notice of violation was sent May of 2023 and the final was sent August 11th of 2025. Certified mail was signed, even though it was some time ago. I have been in contact with them, so I didn't post to the property since we didn't have mail signed by them in 2024. This is also for the same property. And this is an aerial view of the property, and this is from 2021 of May. And here, this is the property right here. And this is the pool that's installed that also doesn't look very good on the aerial shot from February of 2023. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Can we go back and look at that? I want to see, I'm trying to see where that pool is. I know you probably can't zoom in on that. Right, no, I cannot zoom, but it's this green area. The green area. Yes. Okay. That's a large above-ground pool. It is. It is a very large one. In the Google photo, I believe they caught them, like it caught a snapshot of them installing it. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And again, the communication has been the same as the previous violation. He's been afforded multiple extensions to, you know, for his financial burdens with no real progress. So compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before May 22, 2026, and completion of permit six months from issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist and post a fine of $150 per day, each day the violation continues to exist. Thank you. Board have questions? No. I just, you see you haven't been actually in communication with the owner. You've made calls and left voicemails, but you've never actually talked to them? To the tenant, I have. But not the owner. But I explained he wouldn't have to let his landlord know. Yeah. The legal notice has been given, and if he is choosing to leave his landlord out, that would be a civil matter between the two of them because we legally have to send to what is listed in property appraiser. Okay. But I have attempted, aside from that, to have contacts with the landlord, and I have not received a call back. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have a first motion, please? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the avidate in this case. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. May I have a second motion, please? Inspector Reese, we're going with May 22nd again? Yes, sir. I move to an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on it before May 22nd, 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? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. So we will go back up to the agenda item 3.13, which is continued to May 27th. 3.14 has been withdrawn. 3.15 has continued to June 24th, 2026. Next item for hearing would be case, our item, agenda item 3.16, which is case 83-26, fine respondents DUN Investments Corp at 435 Mandalay Avenue in violation of code for permits and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Reese, you have the floor. Inspector Cat Reese with the City of Clearwater, this is going to be for 435 Mandalay Avenue case 83-26. This is for one violation, permits required, specifically for permits of four wall signs on the property. First notice of violation was sent June 4th of 2025 and the final was sent on March of 2026, posted to the property March 5th of 2026. That's a picture of the posting. And this is right off of Mandalay Avenue just south of Papaya. It's the Italian Forlini's restaurant. I have been in contact with the property owner or the restaurant owner. This sign we had discussed, he said he would take down and not permit, but the other three would need to get permitted. So this, I know, it's very difficult. It's like inside there, but it is easy for him to take that one down and come in compliance. But he still would need one to keep for this sign on the side, which is for his deliveries, as well as in the front of the business. And I have gone over, I believe I'm missing one other sign in my photo. I apologize for that. But he understands what signs need to get permitted. I've worked with him for a long time. I don't know what happened. He said he is going to get fast signs to pull the permit prior to today. I haven't heard from him and there is no permit in the system as of today. So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit with final inspections. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before May 22, 2026 and completion of the permit six months from issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. Thank you. Or do we have any questions? So this is only affecting the two outside signs? There are a total of four. He could bring it down to three that need to get permitted, but if he takes that one down, but if he wants to keep it, it would have to get permitted as well. Thank you. Any other questions? When did you last speak with the owner? He came into the office and I sat down with him and someone from zoning as well as permitting just last week or two weeks ago and then he called me last week to let me know if that signs was going to get the permit in and I haven't seen anything yet. I was rooting for him. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? And when would he have received his notice? Oh, yes. It was posted to the property when June 5th of 2026. June 5th of 2026. I'm sorry. Let me go back to that. I'm going off the top. March 5th of 2026. I posted to the property. But he got notices of violation in June of 2025 and September of 2025? Right. So this would be the first notice of violation and the first compliance date and then the second. So we give three violations before ever bringing it here plus all the extensions that were given. So the first one was like 10 months ago? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? No. May I have a first motion, please? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. May I have a second motion, please? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before May 22nd, 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 sell such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Agenda Item 3.17 is continued to July. Our next case, Agenda Item 3.18, Case 85-26, fine respondents Paresh Perikshak and Druti Perikshak at 440 South Gulfview Boulevard in violation of code for permits and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Reese, you have the floor? Okay. I'm Inspector Catrese with the City of Clearwater. This is going to be for 440 South Gulfview Boulevard for Unit No. 308, Case No. 85-26. This is going to be for one violation for permits required, specifically for a completed permit required for the Interior Remodel. There have been multiple notices of violations sent in a total of four with several compliance dates. The initial compliance notice of violation was sent October of 2020, the final being sent November of 2025, posted to the property. That was the stop work order the day of on October 19th of 2020. That is the picture of the posting of the stop work order. This is going to be on South Gulfview. Just to give you, this is a two-tower building at 440. The inspector, the initial inspector, was able to go into the property where the work was evident. As you can see, it does include electric. I know some of these pictures are a bit blurry, but I tried to keep them all in there. Picture of the drywall. So the permit was pulled to come in compliance back in 2020. That permit has since expired. I have attempted to contact them. I've never had, I've never spoken to anybody at this property. They have passed some inspections, but they also have failed some. So, and it does not include the electric. So even if they pass all this, they're still not in compliance until the entire scope is met through the stop work order. So compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before May 22nd, 2026 and completion of permit six months from issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. Thank you. Board, do you have any questions? I do. Yes. Is this the lobby of the tower? No, this is unit number 308. Oh, it's a unit. Okay, good. Thank you so much. Any other questions for me? Has the unit been sold since? No, still the same owner. Same owner. Okay. If you haven't spoken with the owner, how did you get in to take pictures of the inspection? My initial, the, I was not the, I wasn't here in 2020, so I took this case over from a previous inspector. Oh, I see. They went on property as well as air quality because it's a condo, asbestos, all that was done, you know, they did their inspection. I see. So the violation is there. So it's been there. So it could be completely remodeled. Oh, definitely. I'm certain it is at this point, especially with the permits that they've had. The work has been, it's already done, but we need to have past inspections on all the entire scope of work. Absolutely, yeah. So the initial was in 2020? Yes. And then there's quite a time period from then up to, what, 2025 when it was picked back up again. I would assume there was, either it got dropped or there was COVID or there was work being done that was permitted and then they stopped or some such thing. Can you enlighten us on any of that? Based off of the notes, and Nilda was pretty good, this was her, she was in contact with a lot of contractors for them to come in compliance in which they did in 2020. And then she closed out the case because the permit was issued. And that's, over time, they've learned that's probably not the best idea because then we don't know if the, you know, the inspections were done. So it goes in a different status today. It goes in a permit issued status and then a re-inspection would be set for six months from the issuance of the permit. Am I correct in thinking that code compliance doesn't close them out now until the final inspection and then you close your case? Yes. How I work that, a lot of people would tell me, hey, if I pass this and I'll close it out that day, but even if they don't tell me, I set a re-inspection in Acela so that way it aligns with the permit so that way I'm not confused going forward. Got you. Any other questions from the board? We have a first motion, please. I'm going to make a motion for address 440 South Gulfview Boulevard, Unit 308. Is that correct? Yes. I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second? Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please? I move to an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations only before May 22, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Just as a side note, for looking at the administrative side of things, I would assume, Madam Secretary, when this order is issued, that it will have that number 308 on it. It's not shown on our agenda item, and I just want to cross my toes and dot my I's before I sign something. Yeah. All right. Excellent. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Our next case is agenda item 3.19, Case 86-26, Fine Respondents Bond and Ryan Sanhamel at 640 Bayway Boulevard, Unit 304, in violation of the code for permits, and issue an order for the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector, you have the floor. Good afternoon, Board. Reed Ito, for the inspector with the City of Clearwater. This is for Case 86-26. The property is located at 640 Bayway Boulevard, Unit 304. There's one violation for permits required, Section 4-203.A.1, specifically for a permit required for interior remodel, including electrical and plumbing. I took this case over from a previous inspector, so the initial notice of violation was sent on May 6th of 2022, and I sent out the notice of violations on July 21st, August 15th, September 30th of 2025. The compliance dates was on May 24th, September 5th, and October 20th of 2025, and the certified mail was signed on the dates below. So here's the map of where the condo is located on Bayway Boulevard. This is Bay Shores. This is a picture of the exterior of the building of Bay Shores. Here's pics of the remodel that was done on May 10th of 2022, where the previous inspector took these pictures. So when I sent out the notice of violations initially last year, the previous owner did reach out to me, but since then I didn't hear anything from them until March of this year. So the previous owner and the current owner did reach out to me once they got the notice to appear. And this is what it looks like after the remodel. And compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing the permit six months from issuance. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 24th, 2026, and completion of permit six months from issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. Thank you. Board, do you have questions? I do. Why so long for the permit, just out of curiosity? I'm not sure. I don't think I understand your question. Why are you giving him two months? Yeah, why are you giving him two months? Because they are working on it. They came in contact with the permit tech, but we have nothing submitted so far. But they've been in contact with us. Okay, thank you. And when you say they, was that the current owner or the owner? And the previous owner. Okay. So the previous owner is helping out the current owner to get everything permitted. Okay. And this is multifamily, correct? This is a condo. Condo? Yeah. Okay. Is it a 55 plus or is it just a regular? Go ahead. Go ahead. It sounds like the previous owner did the remodel. That's okay. So she's helping out the current owner to get everything done. Okay, thank you. And you say they've met with the building department? They were just making telephone calls and emails with us. So they had a permit at some point for some of the work. Yeah, but everything was. They didn't have it for all of it. Yeah, there was nothing approved. And nothing, so nothing got passed or anything like that. They just kept going and. So they're going to have to open walls and everything? Say that again? Are they going to have to open walls? Probably. Yeah, there are a number of ways to do that. If they get an engineer to sign off on it, but basically everything's got to meet code and you have to proof that up. Am I speaking out of turn? Yeah, they'll have to get into compliance. All right, any other questions? All right. May I have a first motion, please? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before June 24th, 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 or fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. Second. Thank you. All in favor? All in favor? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector Edo. Our next case, our agenda is 3.20. It's case 87-26. Fine respondents gratis filious enterprises, LLC, at 1700 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in violation of code for unsafe building. An issue in order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Okay. Please step up to the mic, if you will, and give us your name and address and your involvement in the property. I'm Matt Blackshare with Shuts and Bowen here on behalf of the fee owner of the property, Gratis Filious Enterprises. Gratis Filious is the fee owner of the property. That's the owner of the land. And the owner of the land ground leased the property to a tenant, 727, Wake Up 727, who is going to build a caribou coffee on the site. Got you. And I don't want to interrupt you unnecessarily. What we'd like to do is get your information on the record and then find out the other gentleman here and what his involvement is. Yes, sir. And then ask a question. I'm James Wardell. I'm here on behalf of Wake Up 727, which is the tenant. Oh, I see. Okay. I'm sorry. Your last name again? Wardell. W-A-R-D-E-L-L. Thank you. Okay. So you're both here. You're here representing the owner of the physical land property. And you're here representing the tenant for the property. Yes, sir. Okay. So our typical process here is that we'd like to ask you if you admit or deny the violation so that we can get that on record and then we'll go from there. So do you admit or deny the violation? I deny the violation. As it stands today. Okay. Very good. Do you have anything to add to that? So I think the process is going forward and it was a violation, but it was because of reasons beyond both of our control and how we're working with the city to fix it all. Got you. So I'll ask you gentlemen to have a seat. We'll hear from the Code Compliance Officer and then we'll bring you back up and see what you have to say. Inspector Larson, City of Clearwater. This is regarding 1700 Gulf Tobago Boulevard. It's a Caribou Coffee location. Case number 87-26. We have one violation. Property maintenance requirements. Minimum building fire code requirements. All buildings shall be maintained in accordance with the Florida Building Code, the Florida Fire Prevention Code, and the International Property Maintenance Code. Section 3-1503, nuisances. The existence of any of the following specific conditions or conduct is hereby declared to constitute public nuisance. 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. This is where we're at here, provided that any unfinished building or structure which has been under construction six months or more shall be deemed and presumed to have been left for an unreasonably long period of time in the sense of this subsection. Notice of violation here was January 30th, 2026. Compliance date, 27 days after receipt of the notice. Certified mail was returned signed on February 23rd, 2026. Here's the location. You can see it's west of Keene Road, north of 60, right on Gulf de Pei there on the corner. Here's on the 30th when we notified them of the unsafe. At this point, it was an abandoned construction site. You can see debris, the silk fence has fallen down. It's been sitting there a while. Piles of dirt, site for site. Again, this is all on the 30th of January. Here's an open trench. Okay, now here we are on March 30th. Up close picture. There has been some site work at this point. We'll go into why or how. Again, site work. Now, this is April 14th. There's a difference in the appearance of the structure at this point. It looks like it's being demoed. There's people working on it. Same thing. Windows, debris. You can see the structure is open in the background there. Pipes exposed. Same thing. Again, this is now, this is the 21st. Excuse me. Starting here is the 21st, which is yesterday. Okay, so this is what it looks like right now, basically. All right. This was an abandoned construction site with permits that had expired last year in July 22nd, 2025. That was for the build of the structure. 8-21-25, site work. Both expired permits. There is an active permit now, dated 2-10-26, for the new build repairs and site work. A plans amendment, 4-17, so five days ago, for additional repairs. It looks like they got into it and it was more than they expected. It had to be fixed. Owner states that the contractor has been changed. So that's where we're at. Basically, for compliance to be met. To comply, construction needs to be completed to meet minimum code requirements with certificate of occupancy. If not completed, the remaining structure needs to be demolished. Recommendation, in this case, if the violation continues to exist by October 22nd, that's six months, impose a fine of $250 per day. If the construction is not completed and a certificate of occupancy is not obtained by this date, 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 all reasonable costs to be applied as liens against the property. The standard, basically, what we're looking for is a timeline. You can see they now have permits. They seem to be finding more work than what was expected, probably. Actually, the previous contractor, the work they did, no inspections on a lot of it. A lot of the work it's not done to the plan set. So you see their situation. Okay. Thank you. I have a question for you. Help me understand if they, originally they got permits, work was performed, work was stopped, but now they have a new permit in place as well as an amendment they filed. And a new contractor. Why, help me understand why this is before the board today if they, granted they had this period of time there, which I understand, but if they've got new permits and have an amendment filed to, you know, provide the data for whatever changes they're making, then why is this before the board today? Excellent question, sir. The city is just looking for some type of timeline. We want to make sure that it doesn't end up an abandoned situation again. We want to keep it moving and have a nice building there when it's done. Okay. All right. So you're basically in the business, since it sat so long, you're looking for a bit of motivation to make sure this thing moves along? Yes, sir. Any other questions from the board for the inspector? Well, you see activity there. Do you think that that's new activity or that it took place? Well, there's quite a bit of new activity. Absolutely. Okay. So where's the three months? What are we going for here? It's not, it doesn't look like it's a abandonment. It's not complete. At this point, it's not because the permits have, typically when a building sits for a while, when the code board comes in, things start to happen, and that's what we're looking for. We want to just make sure that this project continues. What motion do we do that makes sense at this point? Not yet until we hear from the, I want to hear from the land person and the, I'm sorry, I'm not here. I hope I'm not jumping on your toes. I want to hear from the owner and the tenant to kind of get their perspective of what's occurred and where they are with things so that we can better evaluate. Okay. Any other questions for the inspector at this point? I guess I think what he was saying is usually when we get these cases, it's three months of a violation, and they've been given three violations, and they're not doing anything about it. Well, now, yes, there was a period of time where nothing was being done, but they are doing stuff. There is an active permit. So I understand where you're coming from, but I think that's where the confusion lies is if they have it. I understand what you're saying. Yes, ma'am. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Gentlemen, what would you like to tell us about all of this? I can provide some background information. I think you've all had very rational and reasonable questions, and I think that the position of the inspector is pretty reasonable in light of what's all going on. But just to provide some background color to it, this isn't a situation where somebody is trying to do something and abandon a project and walk away. When this ground lease was signed, there was a requirement of the tenant who was going to raise the existing building on the site, and they did, but there was a requirement that the tenant also procure a payment and performance bond from its contractor because we didn't want to be in a situation where there was a half-constructed building and nothing. The tenant, either the tenant defaulted or the contractor defaulted or whatever, it didn't go forward. We didn't want a bad situation, so we required the bond. The tenant got the bond. And then things went sideways with the contractor's work. As I understand it, again, I represent the landlord, not the tenant. But things went sideways with the landlord or with the contractor. And then it took some time. I don't know if you've had to make a claim on a construction bond, but it takes some time to go through all that process. And then, of course, then it's finding a new contractor to come in and step into those shoes, which I understand has happened here. And then I think everyone's probably experienced at some point if you've ever terminated a contractor and got another contractor, and there's a problem with the prior contractor's work. So you've got to go through, and you've got to do this additional work. And I understand that these pictures are from the stucco and the problem with the installation of the stucco, and that led to some other problems. There are active permits here. I received emails just recently this morning about a modification to the description of the work in the permit just to make sure it's all picked up on to make sure the inspections are done. But this isn't a project that someone is just trying to, you know, abandon, walk away with, create a nuisance, anything of that nature. What I would actually request, and I think that the proposal is fair, but what I would request of the board is that we just, you know, continue this to a couple months from now to let the board revisit it. The tenant is already under a fine per day, so to speak, because the tenant already has to pay to my client rent what it's doing, and it's not generating any money from this property. And so the tenant is under every urgency right now to get this project completed and open. And so I don't think that, you know, the purpose of a fine is, of course, to ensure and persuade compliance. I don't think that that's really necessary here. So with some of that background information, I hope the board would consider just continuing this for a couple months, and I'm confident that if it comes back or it just is canceled that it won't even be necessary. We're asking for six months. Well, right, and I think that that's fair, but I just meant to continue the whole concept this entire hearing because, as you see, the contract already started, and then it turned out they had to pull the side of the building off. Right. And we just don't know what's going to come up. And I understand the concern about the timeline on it. But, again, please consider the situation that the tenant is in, which is that it's paying a substantial rent to my client, the landlord of the property, every month going forward while this is sitting here, while it's not generating any revenue. So it's already not in a favorable position, and it has every motivation in the world to get this done as soon as possible. Right. Regarding, from what I'm hearing from you, you're asking us not to oppose immediate fines, and that's generally not our operating basis. I believe the inspector is asking, you know, if work is not completed in six months at that point, instituting fines. If I read your request properly. So understand that we're not in the business of assessing fines immediately today. We're in the business of saying what's going on here, what's it going to take to complete, what's fair, et cetera, et cetera, and what is the inspector asking for. My question, are you involved in the construction end of things? Are you conversant with that, or should I be talking to the other gentleman? He's probably more familiar with the actual construction aspect of it. The reason I'm asking this is that, please step up, sir, if you would, is that our inspector is asking for, is saying that he's providing a six-month completion time, and my question to either one of you gentlemen is, is that a real timeline to get the project completed? We think that's a real timeline. In fact, we're hoping to be done sooner than that, as everyone said. We've been paying rent on this, and my client was really kind of a victim of construction work, and we fraud, and we had them on two other buildings that they did in Pinellas County, too, so we had to correct all of those. So we went as fast as we could, taking the bond. As soon as we resolved the bond matter, there is litigation with the former contractor, but that's not part of this. We want to get this done as fast as possible. It's been a huge expense for my client, and nobody wants to get it done sooner. We do have the two contractors and the subcontractors. We're working on the case in case you're having specific updates, but a very aggressive timeline is maybe 60 days, more realistic, because we know stuff always comes up. We don't think we'll have any problem completing everything in six months. Does the board have any questions of these gentlemen? Is it a coffee shop that's going in? Caribou Coffee, yes. Best coffee in the world. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions of these gentlemen? I see Mr. Garriott's come forward. Did you have something to offer, sir? Yeah, well, board, Kevin Garriott, building official. This is an unusual case, as you said, and as you noted, we've got a permit. But I also want to remind you that we had a permit for about two years, and it sat like that. So we're at no further than we were two years ago when they started building it and left it looking like this. So the motivation that somebody mentioned here is exactly what we're looking for. We want you to push them to get that CO, and if they don't get the CO, they can have some fines on the property and take care of it that way. All the rent, I'm sure, has still been due all these years while it's been sitting like this. Nothing has changed. These gentlemen talk about, you know, where they are now. Same place we were two years ago. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you for that information. I appreciate it. The only thing I would add to that is that there were construction defects in what we were looking at two years ago, and that those are being resolved now. Also keep in mind that the fines that are to be assessed, that it's brought in the CO, pretty simple, in this hands. Although, if it sounds like they can get it done in six months, that would be great. Consider maybe a little bit extra. I would like to ask the inspector a question in that regard. Is it your typical operating basis that if you see a project progressing and moving toward completion, that you're typically in communication with the owner and or whoever else is involved to check status before you bring it back before the board? Absolutely, sir. They've been in great communication with me since I've been involved. And like you said, if we see improvement, passing inspections, that sort of thing, you know, we don't usually push the issue. We give them a little bit of lead. Do you see progress? You're willing to work with them? Is that a fair statement? We see progress. Does that help answer your concerns and questions? Yes, it does. As long as... Good. Any other questions from the board? I want to know what the violation is, the current violation that we're in motion on. That would be a question for the CO compliance officer, Inspector. Well, at this point, sir, it's still an unfinished site. But they do have permits, so they are moving forward. As far as the violation, you know, the nuisance. It's been a nuisance, and we want it to be taken care of. Can you bring back up the code that we're basing this on? The top or the bottom? Okay, so, yeah, it's kind of small, isn't it? Yeah. So, I'm looking at, under the second section there, nuisances, 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 the state of partial construction, etc., etc. That's what you're basing your request on. Yes, sir. And the timeline on this is, I believe, I heard from Mr. Gary, it's been going on a couple of years or some such thing. It's been going on for a while, so they're comfortable with six months. I think that's reasonable for everyone. If I could just add, this is the reason why I asked the board to continue the whole matter for six months or so, because this, I mean, there's a presumption that a site's been, if it's under construction, it's been longer than six months that it's abandoned. That's just a presumption, but I think we've overcome that presumption in saying, by the issuance of the new permits and the activities, in saying that that's not the piece here. This isn't an abandoned site. They are doing work on the site, and they're moving forward. So, I don't think we're in technical violation of this at this point. That's why I denied the allegations at the outset, and that's why I ask that we just continue the hearing along. It would seem more prudent for six months from the issuance of the permit. Mr. Chairman? Yes. I think what he's saying is prudent. I think we should probably continue this for three months, hear it, and then, you know, if they're not moving along, we have ample time to act to before the six months from now is coming in effect. I think we just delayed this for three months and get an update. Understood. From another perspective, if the compliance officer is asking for six months and they think they can finish it in three and no fines occur until before the inspector brings it back before us, six months from now, then I understand the compliance officers and the building department's desire to – I know that the owner and tenant are motivated now by the fact that this thing has gone on long enough, and they want to see it complete, and they're here to talk with us. I think that, number one, they're motivated by having to pay rent. And I certainly understand the city inspector's point about wanting them to be motivated. I think they are motivated. But, again, I'll point out that no fine or action occurs, number one, before the six months, and number two, before the inspector brings it back before us. And so from what the inspector is offering, I see no harm, no foul by going with a standard motion, unless there's something that I'm missing. Even if we just look at a three-month extension with no fines, we're not violating what you're saying either. It's just that we're reviewing at that time. Well, that puts it at nine months out, though. If they're asking for six months now and we wait three months to hear it again. It's just three months from today. Yeah. I'm sorry? Let me ask you a question again about – I think you may have told us, but let me ask again. During those two years, what was happening that was keeping you from going forward? So the contractor basically was defrauding my client. They paid the contract in full, and they kept saying it was almost done, almost done, almost done. They finally had to get kicked off the project. Then there was a bond, and the bond had to come and inspect to see the violations. So we weren't allowed to change anything until they did the inspection to pay for kind of the fraud that my client suffered. So it just – nobody wanted it to take this long. My client was very frustrated in trying to get the contractor to go the whole time. So it just took that long for the process to unwind. And like we said, we've been paying rent on this the whole entire time. And, you know, it's a prime piece of real estate on the busy corner, so it's cost them a fortune. And we are suing to try to get that back. But, I mean, who knows we're just trying to get the building done so we can generate some income. So this was not any, like, delay. This has been really – they're essentially victims of horrible experience here. What's your best estimate of completion of construction? I mean, a very – if everything went perfectly fine, 60 days. If, you know, we run into some other things, we think that 90 to 120 would be kind of the outsides of how long it would take. So if we wait three months from today and get an update, we'd have a pretty good update. Yes, we'd have a really good update, and we might even be close to completion at that point. So I think that's a very fair suggestion. And after that, we wouldn't – you could just set another three months, so you wouldn't be out. It wouldn't turn into nine months. It could just be six months at that time. All right. I'm going to make a motion that we just continue this for three months to inherit again for an update. Second. Is there any other – before we rule on that, we've got a couple of different points of view here, and I want to make sure we sort this out to the best interest of all concern, not to quash anything you're doing. I just – I want to make sure we're all good with this. We have a motion on the floor now. Say it again? We do have a motion on the floor. Well, you have discussion upon the motion. Yeah. Can I ask a question? If we were to do the six-month fine, but let's say this – hope this never happens, but in five-and-a-half months comes along and they're like, we're still waiting for this license to come in or this inspection or whatever, and it's going to take another month, can they come to you or can they come to us? And say we need an extension on this? Absolutely. Okay. And remember, you have to accept an affidavit of noncompliance in order for the fine to run. So, number one, the city has to present it to you. Okay. Again? Right. Okay. So if the city – if things are working out, then the city's not going to bring an affidavit of noncompliance. Okay. Good. Please. A word? I would just say that I don't necessarily have an objection to the continuance. I think if we did do it that way, the city would come back in three months and ask for the exact same deadline date that we're asking for today. The only difference is adding a hearing in between those two time frames. I think from their perspective, there's a difference also in the determination that a violation actually occurred, which I hear the conversation on that. And I would just say our perspective on that from the city is that it has – notwithstanding the activity that's occurred, the litigation, the frustrating circumstances, the code does specify that if it's left for a period of three months in a state of partial construction, I don't think we've heard any real debate about that fact, that it has been in a state of partial construction for a very long period. So that's our theory of what the violation is. Defer to the determination of the board what's best and whether or not you want to hear it one more time before the deadline. If we come back, we would ask for the same deadline in October. And then as others have stated, if there was significant progress occurring in October, the building department would have discretion to bring that affidavit back at a later time. And the landlord and the tenant, the participants here, would have another opportunity to come on that day, and we would again be arguing the point of whether or not it has been left in a state of partial construction at that time. So there would be another opportunity to debate the issue of the status of the construction and those sorts of things. So the only difference between those two, if the city came back with the same date of October, if we did an extension that the owner is asking for now, the only real difference between, and they came back with the same date, the only real difference between the two would be that we're not making a declaration of violation today. I mean, I don't want to necessarily speak for them, but I assume the reason that they're asking for that is because that does give a possibility to allow them to resolve the situation without a finding of a violation. So I understand why they would ask for that. Like I said, you've heard from our team, we're just trying to get significant progress. We understand that this has been a complicated situation, but our code does, the permit issues, the contractor issues, are their own separate thing in terms of whether or not something is a nuisance. And from our perspective, the fact that it's lingered in a state of partial construction well beyond the time frame that the code requires means that it is a nuisance in our determination. And remember, if you find a violation, they're subject to the higher fine for repeat violation. Once you find one violation, they would come back as a repeat violation. You're looking at up to $500 per day. I understand. If I could, the only other thing I wanted to add is that I still don't think under this statute that there is a current violation, I think there is an insinuation or presumption in this statute that the building is still partially constructed and that there's nothing going on, and we know that that's not the case with this. Understood. Thank you. All right. I'm just going to add, I hear two attorneys here in good faith giving us some good information, representing the landlord and also the owner of the property, and I think we should continue for here again in three months. I have no objection. Does anybody else have anything else to offer? No, I have no objections to that. All right. Motion's on the floor. Motion and a second is on the floor. Sorry. Yeah. I'm sorry. We can call in a moment, please. Counselor? No, the motion and a second is on the floor to continue this for three months. Thank you. So I need a date. Well, let's get the vote, and then we'll tell you when it will be on. All right. I have a second. Sorry. All right. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. So when's our next meeting in three months? 29th. So it'll be back before the board on July 29th. Thank you very much. And we hope you can be with us. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming and bringing us all of the data and helping us understand this. Please give us good information. All right. Moving on. We've already heard that was case or agenda item 3.20. We've already heard 3.21. 3.22 has been withdrawn. And that completes new business items. That's correct. All right. Moving on to old business. This is case 48-24. Consider a request by petitioners of RE Capital Management, LLC, at 1915 Macomber Avenue to reduce the fine regarding exterior surfaces and abandoned building. And if approved, issue an order that specifies a fine that includes administration costs and establishes a date payable where the lien will revert to its original amount. Sir, you're here to speak on this case? Yes, I am. My name is John Liu. I'm a state-certified building contractor, not the one that got fired from Caribbean property. Which, by the way, is on sale at Costco. The pods are on sale just at any point. Thank you for that clarification. And I am not the owner. I am an authorized person to appear. And Madam Secretary, Nicole Sprague, does have a notarized authorization on file. Okay. Very good. I like these hearings for somebody else. Okay. We have the authorization and board. The administrative costs are $1,135.20. $11,35.20? Yes, sir. And did you say that the city is in agreement with this? Let me ask you this. What is the city's position on this? We just like to get our admin costs, investigative costs, back from the case. But beyond that, we don't have any objection. And what is that cost? Do we know? Yeah. That's $1,135? Yes. Oh, okay. Do you have any questions from the board on this or any? Sorry. Is this the property that had the window that needed to be replaced? That's boarded up. What is this? This is a fence, exterior surfaces, abandoned building. And that's all been fixed now? Yeah. Oh, okay. Point out that looking at the affidavit, it was owned. The owner died. His father lived out of state. Oh, that's this one. The property was purchased by a new owner. Am I correct in this? And then... I have something. There is undiagnosed. You do. I have undiagnosed OCD. And there is an incorrect statement in the application. The date of death states November 21, 2018. If you look at the death certificate, the owner was found dead, sadly, at the age of 40, on January 18, 2021. So there was a little bit of dyslexia and something else going on there that I do not approve of. So let's go ahead and get that corrected, if that's okay. Sorry about that. Thank you. I don't think that's going to play a major part in anything we do. But I appreciate the detail. Free eye for detail. Thank you very much. I thought there was OCD. I didn't know. No problem. And I opened the cases after that happened. And the father did try to maintain the home, but just couldn't do it. He promoted a couple of times, and we had to kind of take over, and then the lien started. And now they've stepped in. They've corrected the violations and supported the lien reductions. All right. Any questions from the board? What page would this one be on? Say again? What page would this one be on? I don't have that book, so... The top one? Reduce lien. Page five. How many days are we going on? Usually 30. Right. There's 30. What's the number of days on this? Typically it's 30. 30? Sorry, this is the current lien amount. What are we trying to reduce it to? We're reducing it to the city's hard costs. The administrative costs. Oh. I mean, we're entertaining the concept. Oh, I see. It wasn't on mine. Right. No. That's... It wasn't on mine either. They called it out. Okay. Okay? So that represents the city's hard costs and administrative costs. Chair. Okay. If I could just, and I apologize, because we do have new board members. So you have a policy that doesn't allow you to reduce any kind of fine below the administrative costs. So that at least the city on both sides, the enforcement and administration, can be made whole. So that is your policy. So normally what we do in this situation is we'll read off, like I did, the amount. And that is your, the lowest you can go. I see. Okay. Thank you for that. And I just want to clarify. So you're working for the new owner who purchased the property and then made all the repairs? Yes, because at OCD, some of the repairs were done actually before they became technically the owner. The fence repair was done way, way back. Okay. Waiting on the probate. The probate just concluded. And then that's when the rest of the repairs were done. But yes, that is, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. And then, of course, the hard costs. You know, we don't want the city losing money in that way. So, yeah, definitely bring a check to Nicole, like, in the next $40. Okay. Thank you. Right to our house. It's convenient. I'm ready for a motion. Okay. So everything's up to code now? Yes. Yeah. There. I move to enter an order reducing the amount of the lien to administrative costs of $1,135.20, payable within 30 days, or the lien will revert to its original amount. I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, board members. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We're moving on to other board action. And I'm assuming, Madam Secretary, we're allowed to accept all of these affidavits of compliance with one motion. All right. So, regarding all of the listed affidavits of compliance. 5.1.1 through 5.1.9. May I have a motion, please? I move to accept the affidavits of compliance as well. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next order of business is item 5.2, continued from March 25th. Case 188-25, accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondents, Angel Investment Group of Tampa, Incorporated at 1039 West Avenue for permits. We have no compliance for that property. I could bring up the picture as it stands today if you'd like. I think it was the shed slash, I believe, what they may have made it into a living space on the property that has not been permitted. What is that address again? 1039 West Ave. There we go. So, that was, as of today, this morning, this shed here that has still not been permitted. I've had no communication from this property owner. Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? All right. Any questions from the board? Motion. I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance in this unit order that imposes fines and states fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed. City is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Item 5.3, Case 191-25, accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondents Richard and Nicole Pendleton at 3268 San Mateo Street for permits. Inspector Reese? Good afternoon. Inspector Kat Reese. This is for 3268 San Mateo, Case 191-25. Again, this property has not come in compliance. I believe when we brought it before the board, I did give ample time for them to get the flexibility that they probably would have needed to keep the pavers the way they were. He waited until today to contact me and is traveling at this time, so I did advise him that I would be moving forward with the noncompliance. Okay. Any questions? No. May I have a motion, please? I move. Go ahead. I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance, an issue in 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. No. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. 5.4 on our agenda, accept Case 3-26, accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondents Kathy Barrow at 1910 Union Street. For exterior surfaces, roof maintenance, door and window openings, exterior storage, and public health, safety, or welfare nuisance, which is a pool. See, you aren't Inspector Kasman, but we will gladly speak with you, sir. Shrunk. Inspector Kasman's on vacation, but I went by the property this morning, and all the violations still exist. There's a fire at the property, stuff's straight around the property, windows are broken, holes in the roof from the fire, and the unsafe pool and everything else that's on the property. So no change. Okay. Thank you, sir. Any questions from the board? Do you know if Inspector Kasman has been in touch with the owner, or does he have any update? I don't think so. Okay. But I do know that the property is foreclosed and scheduled for option in June, so. Okay. Thank you. All right. And I think I just closed everything. Any other questions? We have a motion, please. I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed. The city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Stand-in, Inspector. Next item, 5.5 on our agenda, Case 15-26. Accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondents, Wesson Road Investments, Columbus, LLC, at 705 Vine. For permits, Inspector Reese. Point of order, Counselors, Madam Secretary, this is for an affidavit of noncompliance. That is correct. And I am not familiar with our procedure in terms of how or if we entertain someone that's here to speak about the property. Yes? I'm nice to say you have. Yes? It's at the board's discretion, but you have done it in the past. Okay. Any objection to hearing from the property? No. She may have been sworn in. I'm sorry? I don't know if she's been sworn in. Were you sworn in? Okay. You've been sworn in. Okay. All right. Please step forward and share your name with us, please. Sure. And who you are? My name is Lauren Bennessy. I'm here in representation of the owner of Weston Road Investments, LLC. I wanted to share just insight on, you know, that no work has been done since the violation and that we have obtained a new contractor who is expected to pull a permit on May 3rd. Would you like me to go through the whole slide? Yes. You're considering? Okay. Well, let us help us figure out what we're going to do here. Okay. I'm Inspector Cat Rees. City of Clearwater will be for 705 Vine Avenue, case number 15-26. This was in reference to the interior remodel, including plumbing on the property. These were the notice of violations that were sent. And then Vine is going to be just south of Seminole Street, east of Myrtle Avenue. This was the stop work order that I posted on the property the day of the violation. 4-16-20-25. Am I reading that correctly? Yes. Okay. Thank you. That was the compliance date that they had to meet on that. And this was the property that I approached with the workers on site. So, obviously, the work is done. There's no updated pictures for that. But I did provide a screenshot to show that there has been no permits pulled since we brought this before the board. And so the original compliance date was set for February 28th. They've actually gotten an extra month because I had to continue all my cases for personal issues. So, at this point, I do believe that the noncompliance should go in until they come into compliance with the permit. Okay. Was all the work completed on this thing? I haven't been in there since the day of the initial inspection, which I did advise to stop work as well as PCCLP. So, if it has continued, I would not know because I wouldn't try to go back into the property at this point. The violation is there. Got you. Okay. Can we ask this lady over here? May I please come back and chat with us again if you would. Thank you. Help me wrap my head around what occurred here because the way our process works, we typically will get, the inspector will find the violation. She'll issue her documents and her violation. And then you have some time to work with, so on and so forth. And we're very late in the game now in that the city's asking for affidavits of noncompliance after a year of this. And I'm trying to, I don't have enough data to understand exactly what occurred and why this thing ran so long. I know that we had an extension because we were in search of a contractor. But, you know, when that stop order came, all work was ceased. It's still sitting, to my knowledge, it's still sitting untouched. You know, how contractors are, they sign on and then sometimes they just disappear. So we've actually got, secured a contractor now who is ready to pull the permit at the start of May and go from there and keep everything in compliance from there. But we have not touched their property since. Okay. Can I just ask why they haven't been submitted yet? Because we were in between contractors. We couldn't get a contractor to. But you said they're going to submit on May 3rd. Why not yesterday or today? Because they are finishing up another job, another contract. So before they dive into this one, that's the date that they told us they haven't. I have a number one of you contractor. So they haven't submitted anything for permit yet? Nothing yet, no. They just told us that they plan to pull either on or by the 3rd of May. Okay. So that's, if they submit, then there's obviously there's a bit of a waiting time before the permit is issued and work goes on and so on and so forth. So I'm trying to reconcile this, the amount of time that this took, where we are now with a affidavit of noncompliance and how all of that affects completion of the property and what our best course of action is. So I'm welcome to get any input. Yes, please. Provide some input. We have, in the past, we've had the board just delay making a decision on the affidavit of noncompliance. I think for this particular situation, because they do need to get the permit and they do need to complete all the work per the permit, it doesn't sound like delaying the affidavit of noncompliance is maybe the best route. It is in violation, you know, part of it. They've just had some contractor. This could also be addressed just through the lien reduction process. Once they do come into compliance, they come back and they get a reduction, and that's where they explain all the difficulties that they incurred, and then the board could reduce the fine. I would just say that functionally, the difference that that would create is that if the fines did accrue because the board accepted the affidavit and they have to come back for the reduction, then the city would be asking for the costs of the case. So they would have to pay that minimum at least, whereas if the affidavit was if you delayed decision on that, there could be, I guess, a possibility that the case could be dismissed if they were able to get it into compliance in between that time frame. I'm just giving you the different scenarios that I've seen in front of this board. Our position for the city is that we did give some additional time beyond, you know, the deadline there. This could have come back to you last month, but it's here now, and we do think that they would have an avenue, at least some relief through a lien reduction if you were to go ahead and accept the affidavit today. And this wouldn't stop any permits from going through or anything like that? No, that wouldn't have any impact on that. The permit process is separate, so the hurdles that they have to get through there is that they do, the contractor will have to have the plans in order, and they will have to meet all the requirements of the permitting, which it sounds like that's something that they are kind of dependent on the professional to take care of. We understand that difficulty, too, but we have to operate with the deadlines and the frameworks that have so. And that's the city's position. Now, the ultimate determination is yours, so you can choose to do whatever you want. You can accept the affidavit of noncompliance, which would trigger the fine starting. You can wait. It's up to you. Okay. Yes, ma'am. I have a suggestion that we just continue until next month and see if their permits are in place. If I could add, if I had communication on this matter, I wouldn't have brought the noncompliance, but I've had no communication about that. And, you know, at this point, like the attorney advised, they could just do the lien reduction, but we need to make sure that this is up to code through a permit. And we're not even in that property to understand if everything is safe there. And we can't just go off of hearsay with no proof of a quote or anything from a contractor, because that's typically what I would ask for. All right, let me get the quote, and we can continue this, but that has not happened. There is no quote from the contractor? No. And no application of permits submitted yet? No, sir. Okay. Ms. Reese, on your recommendation here, I'm reading this. It says, request a compliance by obtaining a permit on or before 228. That time has passed. That was the initial order. Okay. So could we change? So now we're just doing, yeah, that was the initial. Correct. And so we're well beyond the 228 by about not quite two months. Yes. Okay. And so we would be doing an affidavit. If we move forward, we would be doing an affidavit of noncompliance. Right. Starting at what day, though? I mean, that's not, we're not giving enough time. The fines will not start until you accept the affidavit of noncompliance. It's just an acceptor. Accept the affidavit. Unless we decide to continue it or do something different. And when is your contractor supposed to come on board? If you could just leave a mic. Oh, sorry. Come to the podium. Thank you. I didn't know if I was in it. May 3rd. This date. Councilor, you had something to offer? Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. The, just, again, position of the city. But we, the order that this board rendered gave the initial deadline of 228. So that's already in an order. If the permit was issued on the very day that the contractor came on board, they were able to come in and apply and get a permit on that day, they would still be in violation with the previous order. But that would, I guess, create some avenue with the second part of the order, which is the six months, to complete the permit within six months of the issuance of the permit. So it would be some kind of hybrid in terms of determining whether, you know, they were in compliance or not. That's why I was suggesting that accept the affidavit and then allow for a lien reduction if they were able to come in. But certainly defer to the board on how you want to determine this or handle this. But the possibility of the permit is gone. Thank you. Do you know the date that first compliance by... The first compliance date was set for the, for April 26th of 2025, based off of the first stop work order. And then multiple compliance dates were given after that. Ended up with Nets triggering this from 228. Oh, yes. What was the hearing date for that one? I believe it was, this was brought before the board in January. January? Okay. I would. So they've had almost three months. Yeah. I would entertain a motion to accept the affidavit of non-compliance. I move to accept the affidavit of non-compliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states that fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed. The city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right. The rest of you probably are not aware, but Madam Secretary told me that case number 1626, which is next on our list, is going to be continued until May 27th. So we will move forward to Agenda Item 5.7, Case 18-26, accept the affidavit of non-compliance for respondents' Wolf Empire LLC at 1738 North Ward Harrison Avenue for permits. Mr. Chair? Yes. I just, food for thought, certainly defer to Madam Clerk and Mr. Salzman, but if we have an affidavit of non-compliance, that is a sworn statement from our side that it's in non-compliance and it's at least the position of the city that you could accept those without a full-on presentation unless there was someone here, like in the last case, where they had input for you to hear on that matter. Otherwise, I think you can accept the non-compliance affidavits in the same way that you accept the other affidavits without objection in bulk. That's my position. I'll certainly defer to the clerk and the board attorney, or I don't know if any of the other staff have a different view on that, but that might save us a little bit of time. I'm a little confused. Why would we continue it anyway? Well, if I can offer, my only thought as chairman was to be considerate because the owner was here and willing to provide data. Certainly. If the owner's here, I think that the board has to hear from the owner always. But what I'm suggesting is that for the other affidavits that are submitted, if there's no one here to offer any additional, that is an affidavit that you could just accept without having the inspector, without a full-on presentation. That's my personal opinion. I'll certainly defer to those groups if they want. It might save us some time. Do you understand, everybody understand what he's saying, that if there's nobody here to speak, that rather than hear from the inspector regarding the affidavit of a non-compliance, we could simply accept it? Yes, but what I'm trying to clarify is, who asked for this to be continued? I asked for the continuance. The property owner came here. She did show me pictures, and I advised her I need to come there in person. But considering that she showed me some proof of evidence of compliance, I want to afford her an inspection. She thought that I would just pop up again without being scheduled. So what I'm saying to you all is that the city inspectors asked us to continue. She did. Is this one that we're reading right now? No, this is for, the continuance was for Mission Hills, 1626, the previous year. And I don't understand why we're not just voting on 5.6. Is that? That is the one I asked for. Oh, I see. Then I'll go back to what I just said. Then what? If the inspector is asking us to continue it, why wouldn't we continue it? Because they're the ones that are going to determine whether or not such a problem if we get an affidavit of non-compliance. Now I understand. Or compliance. To my respected colleague, I would say the city's asking for this, and that's why I wanted to bring that before you. Sue, you're suggesting we make a motion for continuance rather than just pass it over. Right. Because that's what we're being asked to do by the inspector to make sure that, I mean, if they come in compliance, right, then we're not going to bring it back. Right. I would guess. So that's why, yeah. So you're, you're, you're, the city's requesting a motion to continue case 16-26. Yes. Not the city. The, the inspector is. Yes. Oh, good. Okay, good. I'm sorry. This was day of. She was here. This is, I mean, this is, this is odd for us. We don't do this real often, so. Right. Right. No, no. This is new to me, too. All right. I would entertain a motion to continue case 16-26, please. Second. No, I'm looking for a motion. No, he's looking for a motion. I'm looking for a motion. I'll make the motion that case 16-26 is continued until May 27, 2026. Now you can second. Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you. Case is continued. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, if I may. I think we may have been talking about two different things. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, that's what I got. Okay, yeah, I can finally figure that out. I can't follow now. Okay. I think it was actually great. No, absolutely, you don't have to have anybody here for you to make your, at least, accepting exactly the answer. No, I get that. I mean, I tend to lean in the direction of matters, and if somebody's willing to show up and be here, then give them the courtesy of allowing, you know, allowing them to speak before us, you know. I would go even further and say that that's required. It's mandatory. Right. If a representative of the property owner who's about to have a fine imposed against their property is here and wants to speak on that non-compliance affidavit, we are required by law due process to hear what they have to say. Okay. So, but if they're not here and the only evidence you have is the affidavit, then our position is you can just accept that. Now, if you have questions and you want the city team to present the full story so that you all can be refreshed, we're happy to do that. I'm just suggesting we could move it. And I agree. I mean, you started, for some reason, we started going into detail on some of these. Unless someone's here, I don't believe that you need to do that because the case has been presented to you. You have your order. All you're doing is following up with something you previously had determined. This is a pro forma unless there's some comments by the city or the individual. That's fine. You'll have to forgive my, I'm new at this job. No, no, sir, I'm, it's something that actually, I'm all for it. No, this changed, this changed over time with some of the boards, but we didn't agree with that necessarily. It's just not something you need to do. Understood. Well, I appreciate that. I'm, I'm sure everybody will appreciate getting out earlier by not having to go through this. So, moving on. Next, agenda item 5.7, case 1826, accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondents, Wolf Empire, LLC, at 1738 North Ward, Harrison, Ebony, for permits. I, I'm ready. Go ahead ahead. I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance, an issue in order that imposes fines in states. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Item 5.8, case 3526 has been withdrawn. Next on our list, we have nuisance abatement lien filings, case 92-25, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents, Ibrahim Begovic, Edvina, trustee, at 1353 Lakeview Road, for inoperative vehicle and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Good afternoon, Board. It's going to be a nuisance abatement at 1353 Lakeview, Dave Jensen, Code Inspector of the City of Clearwater. Case number is 92-25. It's going to be one violation, 315-03-B6 for an inoperative vehicle. These are the dates of the notice compliance. Return receipt has not been received back to the mail. This is a vehicle in question. There is no registration attached to the vehicle. There has not been since the inception of this case on 317. I did put a courtesy notice on the vehicle before posting it officially, with no luck. The posting with the compliance date on 4-3, after the compliance date, the vehicle is still there and no registration on it. Close up to the vehicle, no plate. This is Monday. The vehicle is still there with no registration on it. It went by today and the vehicle is still there in the same condition with no license plate on it. The compliance can be met with the inoperative vehicle. The vehicle must display a current valid registration and be removed from the property. Asking for compliance five days after the board renders its order. Board, do we have any questions? Do we have a motion? I don't have a question on this specific one, but is this another situation where do we need the presentation for this? There's nobody who serves it. So these are actually an order that you're coming up with, so these are a little different. The other one is a follow-up to an order you already gave. So we like to at least have something put in the record in case we would have to defend this. So we do request at least a documentation, a minimum presentation. And I provide the minimum. Thank you for asking and thank you for clarifying. And thank you for providing the minimum. All right. We have no questions. May I have a motion, please? I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with a reasonable cost which will become a lien on the property. If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All right. Parlo in favor? Aye. All opposed? Carries. Next case, agenda item 6.2, case 105-26. Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Lisa Upshur at 1610 North Madison Avenue for an inoperative vehicle and issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Dixon. Deputy Board, Inspector Dixon, co-compliance, Inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is case 105-25 for 1610 North Madison Avenue. There's one violation at the property for an inoperable vehicle. Courtesy notice was sent out in March and with no change, so the notice is posted and mailed in April. There's a vehicle in the driveway. It's got flat tires, expired tag, and here's the posting. Today, it still has flat tires and an expired tag. Compliance can be met by removing the vehicle from the property or make repairs so the vehicle is roadworthy as well as display a current license plate that's assigned to the vehicle. I'm requesting compliance five days after the board renders it. I have spoke to them. Apparently, it's an uncle's vehicle that's out of town, but no change. Any questions from the board? I have a motion, please. I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry into the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the responsible 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. We have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next case, item agenda 6.3, case 106-26. Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Jing Bai Wang and Jing Tong at 200 Windward Island for lot clearing and issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Maddox? Kevin Maddox, Code Compliance Inspector for City of Clearwater. Good afternoon. This is for 200 Windward Island, case number 106-26. It's a nuisance violation, and at the end, you'll understand why it's not a nuisance abatement. In short, this is a large active beehive in the front wall of the garage door, which we do not abate. The code section is listed there showing that you can see that it's a nuisance based on furnishing a breeding of flies, mosquitoes, wood-destroying insects, or otherwise threatens to public health, safety, and welfare, which this does. Notice the violation was mailed and posted on 4-3, compliance state of 4-13. The green card was not received back. I have not received any information from the owner, a call, communication, or otherwise. This was called in by the neighbor who wanted to be here just to explain hearsay right now, but he told me, advised me, that this has been going on for about two years. The house in front of you is from the street. This area of the front is where this blown-up area can be seen, and there's breaks throughout the wood and bees that I can see going in and out. I have a video, 30 seconds long, that I took yesterday if you'd like to see it. Otherwise, I attest that bees were moving in and out of this wall. This was on 4-3 of 2026 with the posting, and then 4-16, I'm always trying to take a picture with a bee in it, but if you'd like to see the video, I certainly have it. Compliance can be met for the nuisance beehive by using a registered beekeeper for live removal of the beehive or a pest control operator for eradication of the beehive. With this recommendation for Case 106-26, 3-1503-B5A, violation large-acted beehive in the front wall of the house, requesting compliance on or before May 8, 2026, or a fine of $50 per day per violation for each day the violation continues to exist. I have a question for you, Inspector. Inspector, why a fine of $50 per day? I mean, we're used to seeing fines larger than that. Normally, we would ask for $150 a day. My compliance manager felt that $50, and I agreed with her. $50 was just a more reasonable amount for this. But it could be $150, but $50 is what we recommended. Is the dwelling occupied? Currently, to my knowledge, from the neighbors, no. So when you sent the notice that never got returned to you, you sent it to the address? The address? That the bees are at. No. We sent it to, I don't have it in front of me, but the address that would be in property appraiser. For the owner. That's the legal requirement. That notice goes to the? Property appraiser's address that we have for the property. Sometimes the address of the parcel is the address put in property appraiser. Sometimes it's in Tampa, New York, Chicago, somewhere else. We just legally use the address on file with property appraiser. So you, but you haven't, is there like a phone number that you can call the owner? We don't have access to phone numbers. Sometimes we find them in files from earlier. If something, somebody happened to get a number, and we try and document that. We try and look back. No, I was not able to find a phone number or secure it. Any other questions? I have a motion. Well, is this a nuisance of bait? No, it's a nuisance. Declaration. Just a nuisance. Or is it? B.J. This would be a nuisance handled through fines. Right. And what you want to motivate the owner to take care of it rather than the city hire a beekeeper to go out? I don't believe we currently have any abatement ability to use a beekeeper. It was something done in the past, but we don't have it any longer to our disposal. Prior to the meeting. Okay. We don't know which one. I think we would just ask for your standard first and second motion. Oh, yeah, that's it. What else? Let's go back to the first violation on page one. Wouldn't that be an unsafe building, though? Would it be an unsafe building? No. This would just be more of a nuisance to the general public. Page one. Thank you. Go to what? I understand. I just had a question. Are we ready for a motion? Yes. I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. I have a second motion, please. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on it before May 8th. Is that what you're going with? Yes. May 8th, yes. 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 are made unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. And I have just a general question. Would you hire someone to remove the hive in this case or exterminate? Just out of curiosity. We would do neither. I don't have a professional answer for that, but in listening to others who I've asked the question about, because this does not come up very often, we have in the past used beekeeper who would come out and do it for free. But in this case, I don't believe we have anybody to do that for us or that could be ordered to do it under an abatement process. But yes, it would be, as I was looking things up, it looked like it needed to be a professional beekeeper to take away the live bees. But in Florida, I did not find where it was illegal to use pesticides to kill them. So it may not be the best way that we would like to have it done, but one way or the other, to get rid of the hive, they have those two options. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else from the board? That's it? I just, go ahead. You didn't want to see my video? I just wanted to ask, if they show up and there's like a bunch of leans on it, can they ask for a reduction? Is that something they can ask for? Okay. I just didn't know if that counted as a way to ask for a reduction. If I get that buzz, I'll let you know. Okay. And if you need a beekeeper, I got a number for one. You got, okay. Yeah, if you need one, I have one for you. If there's nothing else, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you all.