Municipal Code Enforcement Board on 2026-05-27 1:30 PM - May 27, 2026

Today's meeting of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board is called to order on May 27th. Welcome, everyone. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Praise to America. Please be seated. Agendas of today's meeting are on the wall at the entrance to chambers. Please remember to turn off your cell phones. The Municipal Code Enforcement Board consists of seven members who are appointed by the City Council. We serve voluntarily. It is this board's intention to promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Clearwater by providing this equitable, effective, and inexpensive method of enforcing certain codes within the city. The board considers new business items in two parts. First, the violation, and then affirmative relief. Formal rules of evidence do not apply. Each site is limited to 15 minutes. The board may grant additional time. All proceedings will be conducted in a calm, civil manner. Individuals who conduct themselves otherwise will be asked to leave. If necessary, they will be escorted from chambers. Now I ask all who plan to speak to rise and be sworn in by the clerk. Swear a phone to tell the truth throughout your entire testimony. Thank you. 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? Make a motion. Second. Second. Second. All in favor? All opposed? Motion carries. Next on the agenda are new business items. Our first case, 3.1 on the agenda, is continued from January 28, 2026. It's case 14-26. Fine respondents Richard and Janet Carnivali at 681 Castler 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 item? Sir, would you come forward and state your name, your address? I'm Richard Carnivali, address 681 Castler Avenue, Clearwater. Thank you, sir. You're the owner of the property? Yes, I am. All right. Thank you. If you'd like to have a seat, we'll have the inspector present her case. Good afternoon, co-board. I hope everyone had a good weekend. I am Inspector Kat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is for case 14-26 at 681 Castler Avenue. This is going to be for one violation for section 4-203.a.1 for no person shall commence any construction, demolition, modification, or ratification of a building or structure without first obtaining a building permit. Specifically, this is for a permit required for the structure that was with a concrete pad on the property. There were multiple notices of violations sent. The first one was sent back in 2020, so this is another one of those old cases. With my final being December 8th of 2025, certified mail was signed. I've also posted on the property. This is going to be on Castler, so it's just south of Palmetto Street. And this is the original inspector's photos of the structure that was being built at the time, and it has also a window that has been installed. This is, as of today, which is very difficult to see with the tree, but the roofing is still there. You can still see the window through the fencing from Street View, and there's the roof as well. So I have been in communication with Mr. Carnevale. He has attempted to, he needs an FLS, which is why he did the first continuance of flexibility. Okay. I don't want to say the B word, but most of you know it is that. So he did come in the office and started the FLS. However, it was incomplete for the time frame that they allow, which they had to end up voiding out, which he was advised of. From what I understand, he was out of town on business, wasn't able to come back in and complete it. He also has a lot of confusion on that, so I did speak with him this afternoon and gave him some suggestions to go speak directly to zoning after today. So this is just some of the issues that need to be done for the flexibility to be accepted for the DRC to hear. So the first step for him is getting an approved flexibility, an FLS. Once it's approved, which needs to be heard first, then he can move on with the permit process. So it is some steps for him. This is just the screenshot that it was voided February 2nd of 2026. So the compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing a permit. We are requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 29th, 2026, with the completion of permit three months from issuance of the permit. I am willing to budge on that date because I know realistically now that he's here and I've spoken to him today, that's not really feasible for him. So I'm going to let him come up and speak his piece on what time frame he believes he needs realistically to get the FLS actually completed, to be heard, to then move on to the next step. Thank you. Sir, before you begin, I have a question to ask you that I should have asked you before our inspector presented. Do you admit or deny the violation? I'm sorry, what? Do you admit or deny the violation? The violation of constructing a shed, I admit. All right. Thank you. All right. Very good. What would you like to tell us? Well, after talking to Cat, I've realized the FLS needs to get applied for and then approved with certain meeting dates. And knowing that the dates are only held on a certain time, I'm going to need until probably the end of August to complete the FLS and to get the zoning permits. So that's all I'd ask that I can have it extended until the end of August. Okay. So you plan to move forward? I plan on moving forward, yes. Excellent. Excellent. I feel confident in all this now. All right. Does the board have any questions? But what's the flexibility that we're... I don't want to speak too much on it, but the shed is in a setback. So he needs to get that approved to move forward with the permit. So I don't object to a continuance until August to allow him ample time to get that FLS in and approved. And then we can move forward from there. And I'll do another continuance if need be to allow him time for the permit. Questions? I have a first motion, please. Is this a continuance that we're going for, or what? No. We're going to follow standard procedure. First, we need to do the first motion declaring violation, then decide on the second motion where it will be. It's the date in August. 26. Yeah. 26. I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the NAPA data 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 August 26, 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. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Check to make sure everybody's mic is on. All right. We'll continue. Next on our agenda is item 3.2, continued from February 25th and March 25th. Case 29-26, fine respondents Connor Petron at 3804 Brigadoon Circle 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 that case? Sir, please come forward and state your name. Connor J. Petron, 3804 Brigadoon Circle. Thank you, sir. And you're the owner of the property? Correct. Very good. Sir, do you admit or deny the violation? I admit. All right. Excellent. All right. Can I get a first motion, please? I move to finally respond in violation of the code as referred to and navigated in this case. I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Sir, if you'd like to have a seat, we'll hear from the inspector. I'm going to call you back up. Hello again. I'm Inspector Kat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is for Case 29-26 at 3804 Brigadoon Circle. This is going to be for one violation, Section 4-203.a.1, specifically for a permit needed for the patio enclosure, much like many of the other cases. First notice went out April 23rd of 2025, with the final being December 19th of 2025. It had multiple certified mails signed, both for May of 2025 and for December. This is just the aerial view of Brigadoon, and he is in the inner circle of the property. This is a notice posted to the property, and this is for the patio enclosure that was built. Compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing outside permit. We're requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 29th, 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. So I have been in contact with Mr. Petron as well. I did extend him a few times, actually, because there are steps that each homeowner has realized they need a survey to move forward. The HOA agreement, so I've worked with them. Unfortunately, the contractor who was helping out many of the homeowners in Brigadoon has passed away. So I did extend a lot of Brigadoon out for that reason. Unfortunately, we do have to move on with the cases, so we don't have super old cases in the future. So Connor has reached out to me last week. He was having issues with contractors, although we don't suggest contractors or recommend any. I did give him the contractor information for anyone who has successfully gotten the patios completed to give him some aid. So that's where we're at today. Excellent. It's back here. Just a moment. Oh, sorry. I have a question, yes. The patio is the finish, is the enclosure. How long has it been that way? It's been there for about 20 years, if not more. But that is, unfortunately, once a violation is found, that violation continues to exist each day. So everyone does have to come in compliance. It is a very unfortunate circumstance that everyone has in that property, and I've been working with everyone on their own separate timelines because everybody's life looks a little different. Once communication stops or they tell me they're going to do something and they don't reach back out, I move on. That's just the way I work. How did you find out about this? It was complaint driven from one of the residents in the property. She has some concerns of property value going down based off of the condition of the property. So I see both sides. Not that it doesn't matter what I see. The violation is there, and that's just the fact of the matter. It's on the radar now. Okay. What's the date of that violated? The original complaint came in April of 2025, so we're going on, you know, over a year with the violations, and I'm still working with people who have been in communication, have shown me some progress of some kind. There's always problems with Brigadier. It seems like it goes on forever. There's going to be quite a few in the near future. Okay. Is this just like a neighborhood? It's a townhouse community, so none of them can pull their own permits because it's a townhouse community. They have an HOA. The issue that we're coming across is the patios are going past their property line, so that's why we had to generate. We had to get with the HOA attorney. The city agreed to this agreement form that's being submitted so that they can move along. A lot of them were banking on using that contractor who has sadly passed. And was it just like, did they go and build their own patios, or they moved into these houses where these patios had built and nobody knew? Most of them bought the property with the patio already there, but that's the code world. So I'm just trying to figure out how to get you mentioned. There seems to be a lot of them that have these patios, and you just didn't know. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Good. Thank you. But the good news is once everybody comes in compliance there, the violations have been found and taken care of so everyone can move on with their lives. Mr. Petra, what would you like to share with us today? Well, I was one of the ones who actually paid to have my concrete patio and screen enclosure built. I don't know. I remember the contractor name, but I do have the invoice on my phone, like Sunshine or something, contractor over in Tampa. They did a lot of the units in Brigadoon, and they didn't pull a permit for any unit, anything that they constructed. They told us that they did, and they did. So that's why we're here 20 years later, because we all thought it was all permitted, everything good, and then one complaint by a neighbor opens up a huge can of worms. So that's what we're doing. Did you ask to see the permit? I did not at the time. 20 years ago, I was a little bit younger. Boris, I don't think he asked to see the permit either. Boris is the contractor slash handyman who was helping everybody get the permits. And, you know, he was there when I was there, so he paid as well at that time to get it installed for his unit. And I don't think he asked for the permit either. Just believed him. So, you know. Yeah, in the future, we'll pay to ask. For sure. Yeah, I live and learn, yes. Yeah. I'm sorry. But that's really the problem that I've found is since Boris has passed that I'm having trouble finding a contractor who wants to do this or knows the steps to do this. I talked to the guy yesterday who said, oh, you know, you can pull your own permit. Just go down to the permitting office. I went there this morning, and they, of course, told me no. And so I'm just looking for a contractor. I don't know if I, you know, a month should be enough time, but I don't know. All right. How much time do you need? I'm really not sure. I mean, I haven't gotten, you know, calls back from a few. Like I said, I've helped to say one guy. Maybe two months would be, I think, that would be reasonable for, yeah, to get everything done. And if we would have extra time, would you stay in communications with the inspector? Yes, definitely. I have no problem if we go with August 29th. I think we'll bring it up to, like, July 29th. Inspector Reese, what do you think about July 29th? I have no objection. If I see a permit in the system, I will watch it and make sure it continues to move forward to being an issued permit. And then hopefully we don't have to come back here. All right. Can I just ask a question? Why can't he pull his own permit? Is it because it's a town hall? It's an HOA community, so they cannot pull owner-builders there. And he needs a contractor to pull the. . . That is correct. Yes. Thanks. All right. Any other questions? So you're okay with July 29th? I think that'll be enough. I'm going to work hard on it and not. . . State communication. Yes. Okay. Can I have a motion, please? I move to find the respondent violation of the code as referred to in this affidavit in the case. Maybe we already did this. Sorry. So the second motion, I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before July 29th, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. I'm going to have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, sir. Next on our agenda, case 3.3 has been withdrawn. Number 3.4 continued for March 25th, 2026, case 57-26, final spot as Martinez Assets, LLC at 1533 Drew, 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. All right, I'm Inspector Cat Reese. This is going to be at 1533 Drew Street for case number 57-26. It's going to be for one violation for permits required, specifically for permits for the fence installed on the property. It also was installed facing the wrong way. There's multiple violations, notices of violations sent to the property, first one being December 11th of 2024, the final December 9th of 2025, also posted on the property December 9th of 2025. This is going to be right along Drew Street, just east of Highland. That's what it used to look like back in 2021. This is the property pretty much today. There is a structure being built there, so it is difficult today to see the fence that I'm talking about. So this fence right here is the fence in violation. This was the original inspector's pictures when the fence was brand new. And this is a picture of it today. So it's very difficult because there's high weeds in the back. It's a construction site, so that's the picture I have asked today. Compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 29, 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. And the fence is facing the wrong way, you're saying? That is correct. And you're sure it's that property and not the other property? Yes, because at the same time, he also, the property owner owns 1537 Drew Street, which is right next to it. Oh, okay. And the fence on that property, he came in compliance with that, but for some reason is ignoring the new build. Okay. If I'm not mistaken, the code regarding fence is that it's got to be the good side out. That is correct. Okay. Do the images that you presented there have the dates, timestamps? Yes. Yes, so let me go back. This was from today. I know you can't see it. It's right in the middle. I saw that one. Yeah. These were Inspector Espinoza's pictures. I don't know why they don't have photos, but these were uploaded into Acela on her inspection date, which was April. Of what year? We don't know exactly. I'm sorry. It was December 11th of 2024. With this one, it's right around the corner from me. Okay. May I have any other questions from the board? May I have a first motion, please? Mr. Chairman, I move to find a respondent in violation of the code as referred to in this case. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please? Mr. Chairman, I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations only for June 29, 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 a lien is filed, this is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such a lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Our next case on our agenda 3.5 has been withdrawn. 3.6 continued from March 25, 2026, Case 59-26, Fine Respondents Kathy Barrow at 1910 Union Street in violation of code for permits, and issue an order with a compliance deadline and a fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Reese, you have the floor. All right. I'm Inspector Cat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is going to be for 1910 Union Street, Case 59-26. I apologize. I was a typo. Permits, this is going to be for one violation for permits required, specifically for one shed that is partially constructed and one outdoor kitchen slash bar with electrical attached to it. First notice went out September 18th of 2025. The final was October 28th of 2025. I had certified mail signed on October 2nd of 2025. This is going to be on Union Street, which is just west of Hercules. So this is the kitchen bar structure that is in the back of the property, which is facing the waterfront. So I believe there are some rules to that, but nonetheless, it's there. This is the partially constructed shed or accessory structure that's being built there. I know General Code presented this case to you as well, this property for the pool and the condition of the property. So I believe it's already in violation. Compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit with inspections. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 29th and completion of the permit six months from the issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. Thank you. Did we ask anyone to express it for this case? I did. Okay. Yeah. Inspector Reese, have you been in touch with the owner? No. I've never had contact. I believe that the property owner is, she is not available, I believe, due to medical reasons. Her son is living on the property, and he has an unfortunate lifestyle, so I've never been able to reach him. And since my violation has started, there was also a structural fire on the property, so there's also an unsafe case there. I'm not sure if Mr. Larson has had any contact with anybody there, but I personally have never. When you say Mr. Larson, you're talking about? Yes, Inspector Larson. Inspector Larson. And has he got the fire case? Yes. Or the other case? Okay. It's an active unsafe case at this time. Okay. Or do you have any questions? We have a first motion, please. First motion, violation exists. I move to fine the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. So, yes. 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 June 29, 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? The motion carries. Thank you, Inspector Reese. Number 3.7 on our agenda is continued for March 25th. Case 60-26, fine respondents Taiwan Hall Sr., Judy Hall, Sin Thongdara, and Sika Thongdara at 707 Lake Drive 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. Hey, I'm Inspector Cat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is going to be for 707 South Lake Drive, case number 60-26. This is going to be for one violation for permits required. This is specifically for the shed installed on the property. This is also an old case that I started over, so my first issuance of notice of violation was March 18th of 2025. The final was June 16th of 2025. Certified mail was May 30th of 2025. This is going to be on Lake Drive, which is just south of Turner and, yeah, no, what is that, Lake Drive? So, sorry. I like the weird spot. Okay, so it's just north of Druid Road. So this is the Google photo, and this is from back in 2019, where there's the arrow pointing. There's no shed there at that time. Thank you for the Zoom. Yeah, you're welcome. And in 2023, you can now see it, which I believe I have to Zoom, so you see the structure there in the back. This is an updated photo that was taken July 9th of 2025. This shows the structure is still there. I did have an updated photo from today. It is there. I forgot to upload it. So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before, I apologize for that date, 6-29-2026, and completion of the permit six months from the 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. I have been in contact with Mr. Hall. I spoke with him the last time prior to the continuance and instructed him on what he needed to do. He called me last week, advised me that he has decided he's going to start taking the shed down. It would be more costly to him to get it permitted, which was fine. I told him, just make sure you called me before today so I can come and take a picture. Even if it's not totally completed, just starting it, I can do a continuance. When I went to the property today, the shed is still up in the same place and no work was done. I have no further communication from it. And you send it today? Yes. Okay. Yeah. I just forgot to upload the picture. I'm assuming the shed is larger than a 10 by 10. It is. Which is kind of the make break point, is it not? It is larger than 10 by 10, and it was constructed on the property, so it does need engineer plans to get permitted. That's why he opted to just take it down. And I told him, yeah, you can get a prefab. It's cheaper that way, but he didn't do anything he said he was going to do. Okay. Now, notice on this. That was a typo. The 425? It's actually 629 of 2026. 629. Okay. Do you have any questions? The Google picture, are you the original inspector? No. So... When did the original? I started the case over, so that is my original dates. I don't... I... So the original case is closed out? Yes. Yes. So I opened back up when I first started. I realized halfway through me taking over that it's probably more beneficial to do that, so that way I'm not getting confused with other inspectors' things, so... But we're almost done with all that now. So on the photograph showing the violation being there, not being there, how do we know it's 2019 on Google? Oh, sure. The current slide. So on the original photo right here, it shows February 2029. I'm moving to see the further dates, so my next one, this is just a zoom-in of that same photo. This one here shows May of 2023, and then the structure is there. And that was generated by Google? Yes. Just for the sake of clarity, you originally said that the first photo was from when? February of 2019. 19. Did I say so? I heard 29. I've had way too much coffee today. We'll make sure we're squeaky clean in here. So it's been there at least three years. Yes. Yes. It's not in the greatest condition. I, you know, him taking it down is probably the best way so he can move forward with something that he would really like there. So he can do it. He just needs to get a permit. Good. Any other questions for the board? Prefabs, you don't need a permit? You don't need engineer plans. It does need to be permitted if it's over 100 square feet. Okay. Over 100 square. Okay. Things might change. Any other questions? May I have a first motion, please? I move to find a 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 the before June 29th. 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 the 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? Inspector Reese, one last question on this one. Yes. Why four names? Are there that many names on the owners? That's every owner of that property. Well, okay. For the sake of curiosity. All right, moving on, number 3.8 on our agenda. Continued for March 25th, 2026, Case 61-26, fine respondents Carlos Sua and Michael Roy at 1303 Sunset Drive in violation of code for permits. An issue in order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Gentlemen, please step forward. Please state your name and address. Hello. Michael Roy, R-O-Y, 1303 Sunset Drive, Clearwater. Thank you, sir. Sir, do you admit or deny the violation on the case? No. I'm sorry? No. Is that it? You deny the violation? No, I mean, it's a violation. You're admitting the violation? Yes. Okay, thank you. When you said it that way, I thought you were. I just want to understand. I'm sorry. When you said it that way. I get you. If you want to have a seat, we'll hear from the inspector. Sir, you're also here to speak on this case. Would you step forward and give us your name in relation to the property or involvement? Believe me? At 308 Engelman, and I'm the neighbor. Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. We're going to hear from the inspector, then we'll hear from you gentlemen. Inspector Reese, you have the floor. All right. I'm Inspector Cat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is going to be for 1303 Sunset Drive, case number 61-26. This is going to be for one violations for permits required for the structure constructed to the rear of the primary residence, which is attached to the primary residence. The first notice was sent out June 2nd of 2025. The final was July 25th of 2025, posted to the property July 25th of 2025. This is going to be just west of North Osceola, pretty close to the water. And this is the structure that requires a permit. It's just another angle. The timestamp is on the bottom here, which looks a little different from what I used today. I'm sorry. Can you use your cursor and show us where? Right here. This was April 4th of 2025 that I took the pictures. That's why I moved my timestamp to what I was used to using. I'm thinking in terms of which structure because I'm seeing a lot of that. So this structure here with the green top is the one that we're here for today. So I'll show you a better photo, which is right here. This is the side view. I got you. It's all of this which is attached to the primary structure. Thank you. I have been in contact with the complainant as well as Mr. Roy. Again, I try to work with everybody on let's take one step at a time. Get a survey. We'll move from there. Our next step was the engineer plans. Unfortunately, we fell short with the engineer plans. So that is why I had to continue, especially if it's people that feel that they're being affected by the violation. I have, you know, to service both sides of the parties. So this is just a close-up of that property. From the jungle that's gone over. There's a lot of photos for this one because each time I went back to see what the progress, you know, if any progress was made, you know, because Mr. Roy has, he needs, in order for him to get this permitted or to get an engineer, he needed to fix a few things that the engineer suggested get fixed so it can be up to code. An engineer is not going to stamp something if he knows that's not up to part. So he was, but I do need, you know, to move forward because I gave him quite some time. And, you know, I have to, again, service both parties in the situation. So he is getting it repaired so that way it could get permitted. So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on and before June 29, 2026, and completion of the 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. Mr. Roy, what would you like to tell us about all this? Mr. Roy, this is my first time dealing with something like this, and it's been a nightmare. I'm sure. First of all, we had a new roof put on in 2011, and we thought this was part of the overhang. After going through some personal issues, the roofer who was no longer in business said that, oh, we will just work it into the existing permit with this addition back there. So we thought this was all done. And then when Kat came up and said this and pointed it out, it threw me back. I was like, what? It's not permitted? And she went back and checked the microfiche. So I said, oh, boy. So I started going through, and I went down to code enforcement, and they gave me a list of five names. And one of them said they had to do small jobs. So I said, well, let me work with this list. And I just have not had any luck with this list. There's some that you can just call, and there's no, you can't leave a message. There's some that you only take a text from, and some that just didn't answer. And one said this was too small of a project. And I was just like, wow, I can't get any engineers to take this up. But I found a handyman that said he knew one of the engineers. And so he said he took it. Well, a handyman took pictures, and he said, oh, the engineer is real busy, but he says you need to do this and that. And so I said, well, that doesn't sound too unreasonable. I took out four-by-fours and put in four-by-sixes and new concrete pads and all these things, trying to kind of get ahead of the thing. But I can't apply for a permit until I have a survey, which I have, but then I couldn't without the engineering plans. And I kept calling and leaving messages and e-mails, and people just aren't getting back. And they're just saying they're just too busy, and it's just ridiculous. And you got up to where I thought I had an engineer, but I got duped on that. He wasn't an engineer. And so when I got up into February, I'm like, man, what's going on? And then one of the men on the list finally got back to me, and I sent him pictures of the drop boxes. He didn't want to come out and look at it himself. And he said, well, I'll look at it this weekend, and then he called me Monday. So I called him Monday. He didn't do it. So he said, oh, call me tomorrow at 9. I called him at 9. He said, oh, call me back at 9.30. And then crickets again. So it's just been real frustrating on my part. So I just started going through the book and talking to people. I didn't know it was civil engineering. I could do that. But I did that. And everybody thought it was too small a project, too small. And then finally somebody said, okay, and this is a group in Tampa, Belts Engineering. And they said, and this was the day before Easter, and they said, well, we could take care of that. So have you worked with City of Clearwater before? And they said, yes. I said, okay, good. So the week after, the guy comes out, takes pictures. He's not an engineer, but he said, looks like you might need some strapping or something. But everything else seems to be okay. I said, good. I signed the contract the next day. He told me two to four weeks. I hadn't heard anything after calling and said, hey, what's going on? Give me an update. And he's like, oh, we're just real busy. But he told me two to four weeks. So May 1st, and he goes, oh, yes, I forgot. We've had some staff changes and this and that. I said, well, I have a code board meeting, and I'd like to be able to tell them that I'm applying for the permit. And he says, okay. So finally I get a letter. He says, well, this is what we've done so far. If you want to show them that, which is just like preliminary drawings. We haven't done the engineering yet. And the gentleman that came out and took the photos in March is no longer there. So I have to come back, and I've got a schedule, hopefully for tomorrow, to come out and take new pictures. He says, as soon as he gets the new pictures, they can do the new engineering. So I've paid up front for all of this, and I'm just – it's kind of like out of my hands. I'm waiting for them to give me the engineering drawings. I got the survey, and I'm just waiting on that. And once I get that, in which I need to figure out what I need to do to bring it up to compliance, because I want to keep the overhead, then I'll pay my handyman to do the work, and hopefully I won't be bothering you on it. That's where I am right now. So it's Belts Engineering in Tampa. Right. And there, you see, we keep sort of keeping in touch more and more now. Got you. So that's it. Do you plan to pull a permit yourself or her? I'm paying them to do everything. So they're going to pull a permit for you? They're doing everything. I told them I don't – it's out of my league. Got you. You guys know how to do the permits. So you're supposed to do all that and have a copy of the contract and everything here. But I really have an issue with the list of people. It was nice to have lists, but if no one's going to respond, it's just really weird. You know, all of us are that age. Yeah. We're like, you know, you call – somebody calls you. And you used to call back and go, we're too busy. We can't do it. Fine. Great. You know, it's just crazy. It's been – and there's a lot of other people that I've talked about that just moved out of Clearwater. They're like, it's permits. It's hard to get people to do the work. It's hard for people to get the permits. They moved to Brooksville. They moved to Virginia. And I was like, I don't want to move. I used to work for City of Clearwater. I like you here, but this is my first time having to deal with permits, and this is just crazy. And, you know, Kat's been great, keeping up with me and helping me. And I can see the frustration. The time has stepped by. I'm like, oh, crap. It's been, you know, six months. Got you. So thank you. Do you think that – sir, do you think that you can get that permit within the next 30 days or so? I believe so because I got a letter from the engineer. He said, we moved you to the top of the queue. The guy should be out tomorrow. If not tomorrow, it will be June 3rd at 930. Take photos, give it to the engineer. They'll do it all up and submit it. So as soon as they submit it, and I know what kind of work I – if I do need to do any work, if I need to do it, I'll have it done. I'm not trying to not do it. It's just crazy how long it's taking to apologize for that. I understand. Mr. Roy, you have a signed contract now with somebody? Yes, sir. And you will stay in contact with the inspectors? Yes. She's been great. I've been able to keep in touch with someone. As soon as I get something, like, hey, I got this. I've had several violations, and we've taken care of them. I think this is the first time where it's just really – because of the drawing, engineer drawings, it's kind of been out of my hands, finding somebody to do such a small project. It's less than the hold-up. Understood. Board, do you have any other questions? We have them. Mr. Roy? No, no, no. Don't forget to hold on. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Roy. I do have a question. I don't know if you can answer, Pat. You can answer. Is the roof have an approved permit? Because you said you've got the roof replaced, and you thought that that included the structure itself. So, yes, the roof itself was permitted. I did check the microfilm, but what he stated he thought that was part of it was, in fact, not. So what he actually needs to get permitted is just the structure underneath the roof. That's right. Okay. But the roof would be part of that, would it not, part of that structure, because it was added along with that structure, but not under the. Under the plans. Under the roof permit. Yes, it was not part of that roof permit. Okay. So I think that answers the question that the roof has got to be part of this engineered set of drawings for this permit. Correct. If I'm thinking correctly, I don't want Mr. Roy to get caught short here because the roof was installed on an unpermitted structure. It might be worth looking at whether that, when the roof will pull the permit, did it include this additional structure, and was that inspected and passed, and if not, then there is unpermitted roof. Right. No, the roof was definitely permitted on the primary structure. Okay. This part, the addition to it, was not part of that, though. So, and then I went, we had to go through the vault to go get, you know, to get that answer forehand. So it was confirmed that it was not part of that original roofing permit. That has passed inspections. So it's, that was for the roof and what was on those plans, you know, on those drawings for the roofing permit, not for the addition. Right. And the point of clarification that I think we're trying to make is that in your engineering work, it would be incumbent to make sure the roof, they're looking at the roof and that it is part of whatever they're doing so that you don't get, am I thinking correctly, just for clarification? I think the roof passed, whatever inspection. So the roof technically doesn't need engineered drawings for this. So it's just from this point here where you see this wood and then down this way. Right. This whole structure. Eight foot by 20. That I understand. I just, for the point of clarification, I didn't want us to end up back here with a situation where there's a problem with the roof because it's the roof on the subject addition that we're discussing here so that, you know, his engineer takes care of everything that they need to. Gotcha. That's comprehensive and covers everything that concerns you. Yes, sir. All right. All right. The roofers initially told you the shed roof would be included. It was included. But it wasn't permitted. It was. No, I'm talking about the shed roof. The eight foot by 20 foot extension we came up with because we had trees over the house and branches were falling, big branches, and we were afraid. And I wasn't there. I was in the hospital with my dad in Tampa General. But my wife, you know, started telling the guy, yeah, this just fell down. And he goes, and the roofing guy said, oh, we can, you know, we should have that extension put on, and I have some extra green metal roofing we can put on there. He says, I can work that into the existing permit, was her understanding. That's my point. It wasn't. It actually wasn't included. In there, yes. Right. Let's clarify here. I think you said wasn't, and I think you're understanding that it was, and I want to clarify this point because at the end of the day, I don't want you to be caught short and have a product that's not fully complete, fully permitted. So it was, we were, you know, we were in a bad situation. We weren't thinking. I understand. And the guy said, oh, I'll work this into the existing permit, not knowing exactly what that meant. We just know they did a good job and it was done. And we've had an inspection by Citizens Insurance back in 2023. Inspector came out, did the whole house inside out, passed everything, took pictures of the roof, said to look at the overhang extension. No complaints. He went up on top of it, looked at it. So we didn't think it was a safety issue. So until it was brought up that it didn't have a permit, that's what the new one saw. I have a question. So I know the roof has an inspection and it's good to go. However, with the structure being part of the roof, would it, with the work being done and removed, would it not impact the integrity of the roof? And maybe we do need a permit just in case it does? I'm not an engineer. I can't speak to that. Does that? I will pass your concern on to belt engineering. But I guess until they take new pictures and look at it and come up with what they – because he says he knows what to do to bring it up to compliance. So I don't know if that's part of what it will be. I just want to make sure that it doesn't – that the roof now is an issue because you're working on the bottom structure. And then it does miss – you know, it impacts the integrity of the roof itself. So we're back in the same predicament of going – having to have a permit for the roof. So that's the reason for the engineer plans. With it being attached to the primary structure and the engineer comes out there, he's putting his name and his license on the line, he or she, that this is a safe structure and the integrity is going to hold. So I would like to leave that to the engineers when he submits the drawings and the plans. All right. Very good. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Sir, you have something you'd like to say? The structure was there before they put on the new roof. So the violation is the structure, not the roof. Thank you. Number two, CAT has given them – the time zone, I don't recall – 60 days to get a permit for an architect to make up plans. 60 days went by. CAT came back, extended their time. They did nothing. You've seen the pictures on how that looks. None of you would like to live right next to that. So on the next pass, she tagged it, redlined it. Do you think that would stop and they would follow through on trying to get a permit? The homeowner can pull a permit, but you need plans. And not to be able to get an architect. I just had an extension, a garage put on my son's house. They're out there, but you've got to pay $5,000. So the excuse of you can't find one, I don't know. Did he show you the engineer that he hired to do the job? But when the county, when CAT red-tagged it, they built another structure and attached it to that structure that doesn't have a permit. So in defiance, they didn't give a damn. They just built it, another structure, no permit. So where do I benefit? We're looking out for both parties. But it seems like the county is looking more for them. CAT did a great job. I can't say nothing bad. She was the only inspector, and she was not the first one. But she was the only one that really cared to correct the problem. So to hire a handyman that's not licensed to do that kind of repair, how can you repair something that's not approved by an architect or an engineer? This has been going on way past a year. They built the next structure attached to that with fencing. Fencing by the Florida Building Code is not approved. It has to be plywood, half-inch, CDX, whatever you want to use. But fencing is not an approved structural material. If we get a hurricane and there's power there, no permit. Again, if you look at the picture, who would want to live next to that? And like I said, CAT, this is going on way past a year. And whatever CAT says to them, they agree, and then they blow her away. What is your relationship to Mr. Roy? There is none. I mean, are you a neighbor? Yes. How close do you live to him? Seven feet. Okay. My backyard is two foot wide. I got big, the windows on the side of my house, and you just look at this every day. The value of my house is getting worse and worse because of this. And for them to build another structure when the property or the unpermanent structure is complete in defiance, and to me, they didn't give a damn. They're just going to do what they want to do. He's got 29 violations against them. They just were forced to take down a rotten fence. They used to have that purple thing. That's a sheet. How can you build, I've been in commercial construction 60 years. Not too much, I don't know. And we do a million dollars, 20 million. We're doing the airport now. So for him to say he can't find it, that's not an excuse. His whole thing was, to CAT was, well, I don't have the money. I don't have, oh, they took us a small claims card over a tree. They lost. They took us back to small claims card. They lost. They took my neighbor to small claims card. Well, she countered whatever she did, and they lost. They lost $8,000. So for you not to see he has the paperwork, I can tell you I have paperwork. There's no proof that he has the paperwork. And like I said, this thing, they're going on. I lived there for eight years. There used to be another structure on the side. CAT got them to take down that. There was another structure on the other side of the house, a cardboard. Luckily, CAT has been in charge. She got them to take that down. So excuses over a year. It's time to say if they were going to do something and pro-permit, it would have been done by now. But show us something in good faith. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. It's our job to, you know, to take the process forward. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Did we do a first motion on this? Okay. Are you aware of all the violations and the permit you're requesting is for all those violations? Yes, but like I explained to both parties, today we're here to speak about this violation. Has he come in compliance with previous violations? Yes, but the focus is on this violation for the structure and the structure alone. Everything else is irrelevant today. I think center structure is what you're talking about. That's correct. Mr. Rill, you had something else you wanted to say? Briefly, please. I have a copy, if you want, of the engineering. I can give that to you. That would help you. Anybody care to see that, or are you ready to move forward? I have an extra copy. I can give it to you. Chad, have you seen it? It's here, so you could. He's showing it. You've seen the contract, Chad? Let's get it on the record, then. They will see it. So that's your contract with Belt Engineering? Yes. All right. Fair enough. I paid the money for that, and I can give you that. All right. First of all, sorry. Anything pertinent you'd care to add? Anything pertinent you'd care to add? Oh, okay. I'm going to do like cat and just keep it to the overhang. A lot of what he said was not true, but I'm not going to go with that. If you need it, I'll just read you what the engineer said to me yesterday. We are busy and are working diligently to complete your project now that it is coming to our queue. It shouldn't take long now to complete it. But considering that it's been so long since the initial inspection, we need to come back out and collect some more field data and ensure that your plans accurately represent the built condition of the structure so that it can meet compliance. Very good. Thank you, sir. It is in motion. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Madam Chairman, did we do a first motion on this case? I don't think so. 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. I'll second it. All right. May I have a 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 29th. 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, fees, and remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to court or settle such liens. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Inspector Reese. Next on our agenda, number 3.9, continued from March 25th, 2026, Case 62-26, find respondents Petrillo, Phillip, Benjamin, trustee, and BG Land Trust at 202 North Glenwood 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 that case? Inspector Reese, you have the floor. Hey, I'm Inspector Cat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is for 202 North Glenwood Avenue. This is for Case 62-26. It's going to be for one violation, permits required, specifically for the white vinyl fence installed on the property. First notice, this is an old case as well, was said July 20th of 2023. The final was sent December 17th of 2025. Certified mail was signed as July 27th of 2023. I've also posted on the property for good measure since that green card was signed so long ago. So this was the property, July of 2019, as you can see here, right down here. And this is my inspection photo that I took December of 2025. That shows the fence on the property. Looks very nice. Just needs a permit. Is that a vinyl fence? Yes. Okay. So I apologize. I was going to highlight them. But right here, BCP 2023-090-523 is a voided permit for the white vinyl fence. So that is why we're here today. They don't have a completed permit. So this here is just, again, here's the permit itself and the void. So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit with inspections. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on a before June 29th, 2026, and completion of permits 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. So they obtained a permit and the permit was voided? That is correct. Because they did not follow through with inspections. So the permit expires. Or it may have been voided for another reason. I honestly didn't look into as to why this time. I apologize. But usually if I didn't attach, like, a void letter, that is because it just voided out over time from not doing it. It's been just sitting so long. So we don't know who pulled the permit, whether it was the homeowner or a contractor? I would know that if I could get in a sell-up. Well, that's okay. It's not that important. It's a bit of a mystery. So it does show the contact up here, which is Hugh Hemley. That is not the property owner, so I would imagine it was a contractor. Okay. Is there a reason we haven't heard of this before three years later or so? I started it – I don't know. I couldn't answer that. Everything I took over was just a list on a piece of paper and going through a CELA and taking over cases as – You inherited it all. I was going down the list. Congratulations. Any other questions? Can I have a first declaration or first motion, please? I move to find a respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit of this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. I have a second motion, please. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before June 29th. 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 select, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Very good. Thank you. That's been baptized. Moving on on our agenda, number 3.10, continued from March 25th, 2026, case 63-26, find respondents Petrillo, Phillip Benjamin Trust, and BG Land Trust at 2 of Twin Earth Glenwood Avenue in violation of code for permits, and issue an order with a compliance deadline and find if compliance is not met. Same address, huh? Yes. So, again, Inspector Cat Reese, this is also going to be for 202 North Glenwood Avenue for case number 63-26. This is going to be for one violation for permits required, specifically for the windows and doors installed. It did have a permit. It just was voided as well, so we'll get into that. Our first notice of violation was sent July 20th of 2023. Final, December 8th of 2025. A certified mail was signed July 27th of 2023. This is the property, same one, same house. So this is the windows of July of 2019 on the property. So just take a look at that photo. And this is the photos for February of 2025. Now, is that all the windows or just the middle? It is all of the windows based off of the permit that was applied for. Okay. So, again, so this is the permit right here. I believe it's this one. You can see with my glasses. Yeah, so this was a list of the property, everything on the property. I'll show you the next slide so you can read better. So here is BCP 2023-090-525, and this is a voided permit as of September 19th of 2023. It does show it was voided. It was just awaiting plans, and it just went stale. So that is why they were voided. So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit, requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 29th, 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. Or do you have any questions? I have a question. Why was this, why is this a separate, just for my own sake of curiosity, why is this a separate case from the? Offense has to be its own permit. Okay. So each violation would be on its own stop work order after the fact. So that way, if they do come in compliance with one, you're able to continue on with the other one that they did not. Makes sense to me. Any other questions from the board? May I have a first motion, please? I do. Was it the same contractor, just out of curiosity? Yes. That's interesting. 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. 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 29, 2026. If their 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, and resettle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. For Madam Secretary's request, our next case, she has asked for a motion to continue this case until, this is 624, but are you? Yeah, but we've been using a date of 629. Does that mean anything or no? We've just been using that for compliance. Okay. That's what I thought. I just wanted to be clear. All right. Can I have a motion to continue this case, please? To find the respondent in violation of the code? No. Let me stop you. We're not looking for a declaration of violation. What we're looking to do is we're going to – she's requested that we postpone this and move it to our next meeting. Okay. So somebody's going to have to make up a motion to do that. I make a motion to move it to June 24th. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. We're going to do the same thing on the next case. I would like a motion to continue case 65-26 until June 24th, please. I make a motion to move this case to June 24th. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Item 3.13 on our agenda has been withdrawn. Item 3.14 continued from April 22nd, 2026. Case 80-26. Fine respondents Andres Perez and Zoila Perez at 2021 North Biddy Lane 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? Chair, my apologies. This case as well will be continued to the June meeting. I need to schedule an interpreter or translator rather for the respondent for this case. So it's being continued. All right. So I'm going to get a motion. May I have a motion to continue this case? I make a motion to continue this case to June 24th. Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Moving on. Number 3.15 on our agenda. Case 93-26. Fine respondents Adam and Dana McGrady at 104 North Meteor Avenue. In violation of code for parking lot surfaces, an issue in order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? No? Inspector Suddeth, you have the floor. I'm Vicki Suddeth with the City of Clearwater. This is for Case 93-26 at 104 North Meteor Avenue. There is one violation here. Code Section 3-1502K4 for parking lot surfaces. Notice the violation was sent on November 24th of 2025 with a compliance date of December 24th of 2025. I did not receive the green card, but the property was posted on 331-2026. This was a complaint came in that the neighbors stated that every time they pull in the driveway, it vibrates the ground and makes a loud noise. So there was a picture of the driveway back in November. This was the posting because I did not receive the green card. This was the posting for today's hearing. This was the driveway the day that I posted for the hearing on May 14th. And then this was the driveway this morning. Compliance can be met for the driveway by repairing and or replacing the crack and heap driveway. A requesting compliance on or before June 27th of 2026 or a fine of $150 per day per violation if the compliance is not met. Thank you. You've spoken with the owner of the property. In the beginning, I did. Last year, he told me that he was going through a divorce and that he really couldn't afford to do anything. So I extended him two months to do what he needed to do. Then he reached out to me again and said that he was going to be contacting some contractors and would have a contract signed by the end of the week. I didn't hear anything from him. I did call him two weeks ago, and he told me that he was trying to pull the permit, but he was having problems, something about a tree that's on the property. But he did tell me he was going to reach out to the permitting department to see what he could do, and he would call me back, and I have not heard nothing from him. And I told him if I did not, I'd be moving the board with the case. So here we are. Very good. Thank you. Questions from the board? I have a first motion. I move to find the respondent in violation of 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 opposed. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct violations on or before June 27th, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day. Each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next on our agenda, number 3.16, case 94-26, fine respondents Brandon and Jessica Smith at 107 South Aurora Avenue. In violation of code for residential grass parking, an issue in order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Sir, would you come forward, please? Sir, can you state your name and address for the record? Yes. Brandon Smith, 107 South Aurora Avenue. Thank you, sir. Sir, do you admit or deny the violation? I'm not too clear on what the violation is. I know grass parking was mentioned a bit, but I wasn't too clear on what it was that I violated. There was a vehicle that was parked there for maybe, I'd say, a year or two. I sold it, but that was a few months ago. And there hasn't been a vehicle parked there since, so I'm not sure what the actual complaint is. They will take that as denial. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Very good, sir. If you want to have a seat, we'll hear from the inspector, then have you address this again. Thank you. Can you speak into the microphone this time? Maybe it's because I'm short. I can't hear you. It's certainly not because you're shy. Vicki Sutteth with the City of Clearwater Code Compliance Inspector. This is for Case 94-26 at 107 South Aurora. There is one violation there for Code Section 3-140785 for residential grass parking. The notice violation was sent on 10-30 of 2025 with a compliance date of November 20th of 2025. Certified mail receipt was signed, and I received it on November 18th of 2025. This picture was taken back last year when the case first came about. You can't really see it very good in this picture, but there is a car parked right there, but behind it is also a boat. Then there is this picture. The car had been removed, and now there is just a boat there. And there is also something else to the left of it. Then on April 9th of 2026, there are now three boats parked in the grass, but no car. And here is a picture of the boat and the car again. And here is a picture of two cars and three boats. This is – I'm looking at your dates here. This is – Last year. These were from when the case first started. Okay. Thank you. 25. October 12th. And then this was on May 11th when I posted the property for today's hearing. There are still three boats parked on the grass. That's the posting for today's hearing. Again, there are three boats. And then this was this morning. There are still three boats sitting in the grass. I did speak to a lady there. I did reach out to them, and I did go over the violation with her. She did say that there was a car there that did not have a tag on it, which I didn't know it because it was backed in. But she did say that it was going to be sold and asked me could I give her some more time, so I did give her another month. I also explained to her that if she's going to have the boats parked on the property, that there has to be a fence there. You can't just have all that parked on the grass, and you would have to have a permitted parking surface. She said that she understood. That was at the end of last year. I have not heard anything since. Compliance can be met for the residential grass parking by having only one parking space on the grass, and it must be parallel and adjacent to the driveway. I'm requesting compliance on or before June 6th. I know that is a short time, but they've had several, several months to get those stuff off the grass, or a fine of $150 per day if the compliance is not met. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for the inspector before Mr. Smith-Becker? Mr. Smith? I'm sorry. What would you like to tell us about this? Well, I guess I just had some misunderstanding on, I guess, what the ruling is. I saw under, what is it, 0.5, as far as what I violated, that there was a special exceptions about boats parked parallel, but on the offset of the house, which is where my boats are parked, as long as they are under 20 feet. And all of my boats are under 20 feet. There's two lasers that are, like, 10 feet, and then one 16-foot sea ray. I didn't know that there was a violation for not having a fence hiding it. If that be the case, I can make that go. But I didn't know what part of it I violated, other than having the car parked there. But I don't park cars there anymore. Okay. I do solve the photos. So I've got a question for the inspector. Inspector, can you enlighten us as to what the specific violation is there, the boats? Is the boats being parked on the grass? It's not that he can't have the boats there, but if you're going to park a boat on the side of your house, it has to be behind a fence, and you have to have a permitted parking surface. He doesn't have either, which is what I explained to the woman who said that she was the home property owner, and I spoke to her. I told her if she wanted to have the boats there, she would have to have a permitted parking surface, and she would need to put the fence up. Okay. And I haven't heard anything since. Do you have a name of the person you spoke with? I might. On January 16th at 10.09 a.m., I spoke to the property owner, a woman by the name of Jessica, and she asked to have an extension to March. I explained to her that all she had to do was move the car to the driveway. She did not want to do that. She wants to sell it. I told her the most I could do was give her until the end of the month, as it was a very easy fix. I also went over the violation with the boats being parked there, and that was the last time I spoke to her was on January 16th. Okay. January 16th? And her name was Jessica. Okay. And it shows that she is one of the property owners at the address. Inspector, can any cars be parked on the grass next to the driveway at all? Just one. Still just one. I know some aren't any pictures there. There was three. There's been times when there's been more than three parts of the grass. Party parking. Okay. Mr. Smith, does that help you clear up your understanding of the violation? To a very minute degree. Is the violation about the car or the boats? It's all grass parking. I'm sorry. I just need to go somewhere around. It's all a violation because the boats are parked on the grass, and there is no offense to hide the fact that the boats are there if you want the boats in the backyard. You can only have one thing parked on the grass parallel and adjacent to the driveway, whether it's a boat, under 20 feet, or a vehicle, or a motorcycle, whatever. You can only have one. Behind that fence, there has to be a surface for the boats. You have to have a permitted parking surface, yes. It can't be just on the grass. It could be asphalt, pavers, or concrete. Yeah. And you do need a permit to get that. Are there any gradations? Oh, I'm sorry. The way that I read it is that as long as it was a mountain wing, well-maintained grass area is well. That's for the grass parking. If you're going to utilize your one grass parking spot that you get directly next to the driveway, you have to maintain that as grass. You cannot allow it to get worn out. That doesn't count for the backyard. No, because if you are going to park the boat in the backyard, you have to have a permitted parking surface, which would not be tearing up the grass. You can only have concrete, pavers, or asphalt. Which by law is that? All right. Which one is that? Sir, if I may, if you could put that on the overhead there, then you can show the board what you're referring to. So number six says parking on unpaved area prohibited. No parking, displaying, or throwing at vehicles, trailers, and or boats shall be permitted on any grass surface or other unpaved area zone for any use unless specifically authorized. And what is this document? This is part of the ordinance. This is a city ordinance? Yes. It is, hold on. I think it says. It is 3-1407 for parking restrictions and residential areas, and it is number six. There was just an exception. A6. There's an exception under there. Can we see the exception? Thank you. Commercial vehicles during the actual performance of a service at the premises where the vehicle is parked, loading, unloading, or cleaning of vehicles, but not including semi-trailers, trucks, or cabs, provided such activity is fully completed within 24 hours, and provided such activity does not occur at the same location one or two times per month. Okay. And American state exception. Question. That's all right. Does that answer your question? Yeah. Okay. Do you want to see more of this? Yeah, I'm just reading this last time. I'm sorry. Well, you want me to move it up? Yeah. That's good. Good. I can't see it. I want to see where it's going. Hold on. You're good right there. That's good right there. How's that? Okay, you got it. As of today, is there any violations still in existence? Yeah, the picture that I showed you of this morning, all three boats are still parked on the grass. Smith, you're – Sorry. Mr. Smith, you – have you spoken with the inspector before today about this stuff? No, I haven't. Okay. Very good. Does the board have any other questions? I guess we need to find out, like, so you know what you need to do to correct this? I don't. It looks like you need to put up a fence and put some kind of surface down to put your boats on top of. Concrete or pavers? I would recommend that you speak with the inspector and or the building department as far as what's actually required to get this satisfied. Even for the smaller boats, I would still need – If you're going to cart anything on the ground, you can only have one thing. If you want to keep the boats there, you have to put up a fence, and you have to have a permitted parking surface. And that comes for the backyard, too? That is only for the backyard. That requires a permitted surface. Okay. And, again, those are issues to sort out with the – I'm sorry. Let me step on you there. If you wanted to move one of them out directly next to the driveway in the grass, you could do that as long as they have current tags on the trailers. Okay. But only one. So, again, I would suggest you discuss your – get an understanding with the code enforcement officer, talk with the building department, get an understanding of what it is you need to do to get into compliance there. That's right. Okay? No problem. All right. Do we have any other questions? No. I guess how long do you think it will take you to do that? To put a fence in – I'm honestly going to sell the boats, then. I'm not going to put a paper down. I'd rather sell them and make money. So maybe two months. Okay. If it will take. August 6th? Or July. July. July. Inspector, do you have any thoughts about setting a date further down the road other than – It's entirely up to you guys. I told you what I thought. They passed since last year. I've spoken to the wife. She knew what needed to be done, and here we are. Okay. And when did this case first start? 25. The first notice was sent out to them on October 30th of 2025. So it's been about seven months, seven, eight months, something like that. Nine months? It's going on about eight months. Okay. The board on setting a timeline? I'm okay with extension. July? I think we should do July and give him two months to sell boats. That's what he wants to do. Somebody give me a motion. I put in a motion to extend this to July. It's going to be the first. Let's – we're going to – initially, we need to do the first violation. I'm sorry. Oh, okay. Give me the first violation motion, if you will. Let's clear that. 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? I have a second motion, please. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before July 6th of 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 or settle such lien. I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion passes. Sir, please get with your inspector and the building department, and they can get with your inspector and the building department, and they'll help you get it resolved. Thank you. All right. We are coming up on an hour and a half of meeting. Does anybody need to take a break, or shall we continue? I'm fine. I'm good. You want a break? No? All right. We'll continue. Are you sure? Somebody flag me if you want to take a break. We can just actually break. Pardon? We can, it's been determined, we can just walk out and do that and actually take a break. Yes, you can leave. If somebody can. I'm sure the clerk can, but you guys can. All right. Moving on. Number 3.19 on our agenda has been withdrawn. 3.20, case 98. I think we're missing. Did I miss one? I did. I skipped one. 3.18. All right. Thank you. Maybe I need a break. Agenda item 3.18, case 96-26, fine respondents, ARCA Homes, LLC, at 1465 San Juan Court in violation of code for exterior surfaces and windows maintenance. An issue in order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector, you have the floor. Hello again. Vicki Suddiff with the City of Clearwater Code Inspector. This is for case 96-26 for 1465 San Juan Court. There are two violations at this property, code section 3-1502, C1 and C3 for door and window maintenance, and code section 3-1502B for exterior surfaces. The notice of violation was sent on January 15th of 2026 with a compliance date of February 15th, 2026. I did not receive the green card, so the property was posted on March 21st of 2026. I did bring this property already for the overgrowth, which has been taken care of, so just kind of disregard the overgrowth. This is for the exterior surfaces and the broken windows. This is a picture of the soffit falling down, that window behind it. It's kind of hard to see in this picture, but it's broken. Again, there's a lot of peeling paint, vines growing, trees growing out of the eaves. There's a closer-up picture of the broken window. The gutters are falling down off the top of the roof and off the wall. This was a posting for, because they didn't receive the green card, and then this was a posting for today's hearing, and then these were taken this morning where the soffit's still falling down, the windows still broke, the vines are still growing, and the peeling paint is still everywhere. Compliance can be met for the exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structural and decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, or faded peeling paint. And compliance can be met for the door and windows by replacing all broken windows and removing any boards. Requesting compliance on or before June 27th of 2026 or a fine of $150 per day per violation if compliance is not met. Might I surmise that this house is unoccupied? It is not occupied at this time. It's not. I would have brought it a lot sooner, but I did notice, you could have seen it in one of the pictures, there was an extra posting there. It was actually going up for auction in February because the taxes have not been paid on it, and the owner did come in and pay the taxes on the day of the deadline, but I have not had any contact with him. I have called him, I've left several messages, and I've also tried to e-mail him, and I've gotten a response. No contact whatsoever. 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. 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 27, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day for violation for each day. Each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Inspector. Inspector Kasman. Hello there. Our next item 3.20, case 98-26. Final respondents, Laura Long, at 1786 Mary Avenue, in violation of the code for fences and walls and exterior storage, and issuing the order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? No? Inspector Kasman, you have the floor. Good afternoon, Board. Daniel Kasman, code enforcement inspector for the city of Clearwater. This is case number 98-26 for 1786 Mary Avenue. There's two violations here for code section 3-1502 G1-2-3 for exterior storage, code section 3-808A 1-6 for fence maintenance. These are the dates the notice of violation went out with the compliance date. You'd get the certified mail and receipt back. You'd have to post the property for today's hearing. This is 1786 Murray. On the left side of the home, and I'll have better photos in the future, there's a fence panel that's fallen over on its face on that side of the home. And on the other side of the home, if you look to the right there, you'll notice there's some damaged fence with a lot of materials being stored outdoors, a lot of construction materials, buckets, bins. In the front of the home as well, there's a bunch of bins and buckets and a mini-fridge being stored outdoors. I have spoken with the owners of the property. It seems like they might be going through some tough times. There's a foreclosure activity happening on the property. There was some other things. There were two destroyed carports, canvas carports in the driveway, which they did remove. That also had items under them, but they didn't finish up with everything else. So this was after the compliance date. This is a better photo of the front. You can see there's some materials sitting by the door. There's also more bins and boxes. This is a better photo of that fence panel just laying down right in front of the fence. And again, on the side there, the fence is damaged, and they're storing a bunch of buckets and construction materials outdoors. This is the notice of hearing for today's hearing. And then when I went by this morning, it was more of the same. This is a better look at all that stuff just sitting out front and then on the side there. So compliance meant for the exterior storage by removing from the grounds of the property. All items not meant for outdoor use, such as bins, boxes, construction materials, mini-fridge, and other miscellaneous items. In compliance, we meant for the fence maintenance by repairing an existing fence or removing it. Repair means ensuring it is upright. Panels are securely attached and missing slats are replaced. And requesting compliance hour before June 27, 2026, a reply of $150 per day per violation for each day the violations continue to assess. Thank you. Questions from the board? The 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 27, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much, Board. Thank you, Inspector. Moving on, agenda item 3.21, case 99-26, fine respondents Renzi Dalit at 808 Normandy Road in violation of code for development code violation, SHED, and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Inspector Jensen, we have the floor. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? No. Inspector, you have the floor. Good afternoon, Board. Thank you, Inspector Kasman. We're going to work from here, I guess. This is 808 Normandy, Dave Jensen, code inspector for City of Clearwater, case number 99-26. Let's see if I can get this. There we go. This is going to be for a zoning violation. There is an accessory structure that's been placed in front of the residents, between the residents and the right-of-way. It's one violation under the 1-104, which is the zoning, which covers the 3-203 that does not allow any accessory structures between the primary building and the right-of-way. These are the dates of the notice of violation. The return mail was received, signed. I did speak to the owner back in February about it. He told me that he has renters in there that he was trying to evict, so I gave him some extra time, hoping he could get it taken care of. But he stated they were the ones that put the shed out there. The shed was posted with a notice so that both the owner and the renters would be able to see it. This is where the shed started out at. This is where the shed started out at. The neighbor complained because he did at one point have it shoved up into the shrubs. The property line is about right where the shed was sitting when I originally went to look at it. This is the date that I went out to look at it originally as well. And posting to put on it, let them know that it was in violation. This is after the compliance date. This is on 5-21, well after the compliance date. They had moved it from where it was at, turned it sideways, and just placed it in a different spot, which does not alleviate the violation. And then this was this morning. Nothing's changed with it. It's not been corrected. The appliance we've met by removing the shed from between the right-of-way and the front of the principal structure. I am requesting compliance on it before 6-17-26 or a fine of $150 per day for each day the violation exists. Thank you. Board, do you have any 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. 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 27th, 2026. If the respondent does not comply... Sorry, it says June 17th. Thank you, Chelsea. You're very welcome. Sharp people here. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before June 17th, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day for violation for each day. Each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Next on our agenda, item 3.22, case 100-26, fine respondents Cody Roof at 519 Florida Avenue in violation of code for short-term rental and residential rental business tax receipt and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Stevens, you have the floor. Good afternoon, board. John Stevens, code compliance inspector for the city of Clearwater. Again, this is case number 100-26 regarding 519 Florida Avenue. We have two violations here for code section 1-104 and 3-919. We use that together for the illegal short-term rental violation. And then code section 3-2302 for not having a residential rental business tax receipt, which is required. There we go. Notice of violation. Originally, it was mailed out on March the 3rd of this year. I got it returned to sender. They refused to accept it on March the 23rd. So I researched the property again, made sure it was still in violation, and actually went out and posted the property on March the 23rd with a compliance date of March 30th. There is the posting actually out on the property. This is a picture of 519 Florida Avenue from Google Maps. And it's kind of hard to see, but I did a little circle up here. There's a column up there that's got 519, very large on there that you'll see in the posting where they had it on Airbnb. But this is actually a duplex property. It has two units within it. This is the Airbnb posting. This was from March the 3rd, and I was able to select as low as two days to reserve the property. Again, for our code, you cannot do anything less than 31 calendar days or one calendar month. This was pictures from that posting as well showing that it is the exact same property. Again, the post there with 519 up here in the one corner and then also down over here. This is a screenshot from our seller program where if you had a business tax receipt, if you applied for it, it had been approved or whatnot. It would show up in this system, and the last VTR that was actually from this property was in 2012 for a rental, and it went out of business. The property has changed ownership since then, and obviously would need a new business tax receipt. This is the actual same listing on March the 23rd when I went back and verified it, that it was still in violation. Again, I could get it for as little as two days. And double-checking the system, we still, there was no pending VTR application. Fast forward all the way to March 31st, so this was after the compliance date. The property, the original Airbnb listing had been deleted. Since this is a duplex, it has 519 and 521 in it, so I ended up finding this listing in there, so it had an appearance like it went into compliance. But as you can see, the hosting person down here I have circled in red, it's the exact same person that was hosted on 521 and 519. With a minimum two-night stay, again, the VTR, again, does not match. There's not a VTR for 521 either, I double-checked that. And again, this is that secondary unit right here, so you can see the 521 that's up here in the corner, posted by Cody, two-night minimum stay. And when you even look through Google Maps, you can see here, that's the 519 that I was talking about, but circled is 521 with an arrow to the side, and you can barely see it. There's a 521 there from that angle, and if you've ever played with Google Maps at all, it's kind of hard sometimes to get exact angles to look at things. I was able to get it scrolled a little bit, and you can actually see the 521 that is there for that duplex. Again, double-checking that VTR, there was not one for 519, nor is there one for 521. There was one back in, it looks like, 2004, again, for a duplex, but again, it is out of business, so it does not apply. So compliance can be met for the illegal short-term rental by changing any rental listing on any website or platform, such as Airbnb, BRBO, Booking.com, etc., to a minimum of 31 days or one calendar a month, or they can delete the listing altogether, and if they want to rent the property on a yearly basis, they can do that, or even a monthly basis, but they're just going to have to comply with what the code says. Compliance can be met for the residential rental business tax receipt by obtaining that residential rental business tax receipt or stop leasing the property period, and then they would not be required to have it. So my recommendations for the case, for the illegal short-term rental and the residential rental business tax receipt is requesting compliance by June 6th of this year, or a fine of $150 a day for the illegal short-term rental, and then a fine of $50 a day for the residential rental business tax receipt for each day that those violations continue to exist. We're dealing with two separate violations here, correct? That is correct. Madam Secretary, I believe that would be two separate orders and findings, maybe that's, I mean, two separate declarations as one, so we just combine, we stipulate the specific fines in our second order? That would be correct. Okay, very good. Any questions for the inspector? I guess my question is, these are, so it's four technically violations because it's two on each one, or it's one for the whole building? It's just for the whole property. Okay. Our violations go by the property. Okay, thank you. Even though they have separate listings on the Airbnb and separate addresses, you're bringing this as one. That's correct, because it's for that parcel. Okay. We go by property. Okay. Well, that answers that. Thank you. Makes it a lot simpler. All right. Any contact from the owner at all? No, none at all. Okay. Questions? You guys are all for quiet. All right. We have a first motion then. 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. I have a second motion detailing the two separate fines distinctly, please. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation on or before June 6, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 a day 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. I don't know. All right. All right. What I'm looking to do is there's two violations. One is fined at $150. The other is fined at $50. So I'm almost thinking we could use his wording there in our motion to specifically detail the fine of $150 a day for the illegal short-term federal and a fine of $50 for the residential rental business tax receipt. Okay. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 a day for the illegal short-term rental violation and a fine of $50 a day for the residential rental business tax receipt violation 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. Thank you. Thank you, board. Thank you, sir. Item 3.23 is withdrawn. 3.24 is withdrawn. Next case is 3.25, case 103-26. Fine respondents Michael Plunkett at 205 South San Remo Avenue in violation of code for unsafe building. And issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Inspector Larson, you have the floor. Good afternoon, board. My name is James Larson, inspector for City of Clearwater. This case is on 205 South San Remo Avenue, case number 103-26. We have one violation, property maintenance requirements, minimum building and fire code requirements. All buildings shall be maintained in accordance with the Florida Building Code, Florida Fire Prevention Code, International Property Maintenance Code. Section 3-1503 is nuisances. The existence of any of the following specific conditions. Buildings which are abandoned, boarded up, partially destroyed, left for a period of three months in a state of partial construction. This is an abandoned property. Notice of violation, 3-10-2026. Appliance date, 27 days after the receipt. Certified mail returned unsigned, 3-27. Property posted, 4-1 of this year. Notice of hearing posted, 4-14. Notice of hearing. Abandoned derelict home. Previous case, this had a previous case, unsafe, 2015-00027. It was found in violation on 2-26-2020. The Code Board gave the city authorization to enter onto the property and correct the violation as needed. Time has passed. We are now seeking to update the authorization to correct the longstanding violation. Here's where the property is. You're looking at west of Highland and north of Gulf of Bay there. This is the previous notice of lien imposed. And here we have the board order. This is from 20 of them. These are my postings, the 1st and the 14th of April this year. Here's the front of the house on March 9th. Here's one side. This is the rear. You'll notice the wall has disappeared. It's quite a bit going on there. Again, the rear of the house. The other side, you'll notice every window on the property is busted. It's been sometimes a transient camp for many years. Again, this is the side. The windows are missing siding. The roof is a shamble. Here's the rear of the structure. This was being used as a transient camp. It kind of looks like a debris field. These are inside the property through broken windows. This thing's been abandoned for a long time. And this was yesterday. There's been no change. My postings have not been removed. For compliance to be met, complete restoration to meet minimum code requirements or demolish the remaining structure. That would be a good candidate for that. Yes, sir. That's why we're here today. Recommendation for case number 103-26. The structure is not in compliance by June 27, 2026. The city asks the board to authorize entrance on the property to correct the violations. The city will correct the violations by any means necessary with any reasonable cost to be applied as liens against the property. After three months from the recording date of such lien, if the fines and fees remain unpaid, the city attorney's office is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien using any legal or equitable remedies available under the law. I have a question, and I don't know who it's for. You and me both. Since this has been going on since 2020, why do we even have to give a compliance date? Well, so we have an old order, and we've brought it back because we are specifically asking for authority for the city to enter and demolish and remove all the debris and completely clean the property. So because we're seeking that elevated remedy, we thought it best to come back. And essentially, if the city does carry out the demolition and bring the property into compliance, the old order with the fines running would then, those fines would then stop the day that the city brings the property into compliance. But we also would seek to recoup the costs of demolition and abatement and all that. So because the order has been out there for a while, we felt that it was safe and prudent to bring it to the board, have another hearing on it, and make clear that we're seeking this elevated remedy of demolition. Okay. Thank you. So we already did an order on here. You had the right to do a lien, which you've already done, but you also can foreclose. Why aren't you taking that action then? I believe we looked at this one, and there may have been some homestead claim to it. Obviously, you know, there may not be some legitimacy to that claim. Our practice in the past has been because the property appraiser makes the determination of homestead, not the city, and our practice has always been to stay out of that. When we look for cases to refer to foreclosure, if we see that they're homestead, we typically remove them from our list. We don't recommend them for foreclosure. That's not to say that we couldn't attempt to foreclose and then claim that or try to argue that this is not a legitimate homestead, that it's a fraudulent claim of homestead. This is one situation where we will discuss that internally and make a decision. That is something that would be taken to the city council for consideration before it's actually pursued. But we have been discussing that internally. Generally, just to give a little clarification for some of the newer members, Chapter 162 specifically says that we cannot foreclose a code enforcement lien against homesteaded property. So it's sort of an immunity against these liens. And so we don't typically try to challenge that. But this could be an example case where we may actually consider challenging that. Did I say something incorrect? Our esteemed building official. Hi, Kevin Garriott of the building department. Why did you think you said something wrong? You jumped up. You jumped up. I just wanted to point out to the board that I think the foreclosure is secondary to the fact of getting that property cleaned up and made safe. It's open to the world, basically. That's the foremost thing that we are trying to do now. And whether we foreclose or not, that is secondary in nature. I mean, once you remove the house, doesn't that remove homestead? You can't live in nothing. Well, the way the courts interpret – so homestead is a constitutional right that people have. And courts interpret it very favorably in favor of the property owner. And so if the property owner has an intent to make the property their homestead, even there have been cases where that intent alone was enough to assert a homestead protection. So because it's such a strong protection and it's a constitutional right, it's something that typically the city – we do not attempt to interfere with that or challenge that. Obviously, there are cases where challenging it may be warranted. This could be one. Like I said, how that would work is right now we're just asking for authority to go in there and clean it up, and then we'll figure out what to do about collecting the costs to make the taxpayers whole later. And that conversation would happen internally with the city attorney's office and the staff. And then ultimately we would take a recommendation to the city council if we felt like we could make a case. Thank you. To our attorney? Went to nuisance of payment? That's not how they brought it. All we can do is look at the cases, how the city decides. As Jared said, there's a bunch of different reasons, much longer. Now, nuisance of payment, that's up to the city on how they want to proceed, whether they want to do it just as a nuisance of payment or the process that we're doing. And what's the shortest time period we can give you authorization to go in there and do this? Do we have to wait 30 days or can we – Three days is still. I think we should do that. That's an excellent point. I was wondering why we were doing, like, June 27th. Do you care to say anything about that, Inspector or Mr. Garrett? We just chose 30 days just to give them another fair chance. Is that not going to reset everything for the fines or anything else? I mean, my opinion is that we have an order that establishes that there is a violation in place already. Those fines are running, and what we're seeking now is essentially an abatement order. It wasn't on that portion of your agenda, but I think we put a suggested motion in the PowerPoint, and we're just asking for a motion of that that would sound like or look like that. If the city – the fines for the previous order would continue to run up until the date that the city carries out the abatement and cleans the property. It's an unsafe building. I mean, the city can come in quicker if they – I think we should share it earlier than June 27th. It can't go as a nuisance abatement. I mean, quicker if you want to shorten the property, especially in light of the fact that there's pre-spottings on this property that are still – Is there a legal requirement for owner notification before any action is taken? So we need – it should be probably something like 10 days. 10 days would be fine. To make sure the owner gets legal notification. That way everybody's rear end is covered, so to speak. I mean, I don't think any time period is going to affect it. I don't either, but I don't want it argued later either. There's an existing unsafe building order out there? No. Or not? Yes, there is. Okay, so what are we adding now that's not included in that order? The remedy for the city to demolish. We're just okaying that. It says including entry onto the property to bring the property into compliance. Does that not get you there? Yeah. Well, like I was saying earlier, because we have this old order, we hadn't acted upon it in many years. We thought it was best to come back, have a hearing to make clear that we were going to act on the authority to demolish. But if it was only a year, you'd have the same issue. What would you do normally? Wouldn't you give them a notice subject to this order? Are you saying that their order is invalid now, is that what you're saying? No, you're just saying if it's homesteaded, you can't foreclose it. But you can go in and fix unsafe conditions. Yes. And that's already been authorized through that original order. So I'm not sure. What would you do normally? If this was six months or a year from that order, you wouldn't come back and ask us to do another order. You'd have some type of notification that you'd do routinely to the owner and say, hey, we're coming in. We would send a letter, we would run title, we would start moving that process forward, get bids. So why doesn't that work now? We just, it had gone, it's been a long time for this one, so we brought it back. The only thing I would tell you is that that's the city, that's how the city would like to proceed. They're bringing it before you and making that request. Okay. Okay. Let's do it. Well, instead of 30 days, can we just give them half of that, 15 days? I think we're going to do 10. 10 days? 10. 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. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? I have a second motion, please. You may, but what am I supposed to say here? Because it's not a violation. Are they getting, they're not getting another charge every day that they're not in there. Well, they brought a, I mean. So what do I say here? And what's the 10th date? You can give them another fine if you so choose. Basically consider it a case. 10 days from now. $150 per day. $150 per day. The 7th? The 10th. Well, it's in the original. The 7th. I mean, you get the 7th. Just so you know, you can do up to $250. Okay, let's do 7th. $250. Go get them. I'm waiting for a motion. Okay. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before June 7th, 2026, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $250 per day for a violation for each day. Each violation did exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to report collectors. I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? But I have a question. Oh, go ahead. It passes. Thank you, board. Does this give the city the permission to go in and demolish? Because it seems like we already had this in place. Well, I mean, if the board is authorizing that, then that's what it is. And that's what we're asking for. So we just wanted to be clear that we're asking for the authority to demolish from the board. So if the board is going to give us that authority, then we can work to carry that out within the time frame that the board specifies. So do we need to have that in our order, though? That would be my request would be that someone would make a motion that the city could correct the violation by any means necessary, as it's stated on the screen there, within if the time frame from the board is 10 days, then that would be stated. And that's the motion that we were looking for, just to clarify that we do have that express authority, and we're going to act on it. Well, we can make a motion, just with this verbiage right here, changing the date. We already voted on it. Well, but that doesn't mean we can't make another motion on the same case, does it not? No, you made a motion. You seconded it. Everybody voted in favor. I would just go forward with what the city has been asking and let them deal with it. I think they're comfortable. Definitely. So everything we did made it okay for you to go in and tear it down? In 10 days. They'll go in and secure the property how they see fit. Okay. Madam Secretary, I do not have a copy of the lien reduction request on our next. You passed one over to me. I do now. Thank you. Do you need one? All right, that concludes our new business items. Next is old business items, and it's on our agenda. It's number 4.1. It's case 128-25. Consider a request by petitioners, Corolli Windows and Doors, LLC, at 1165 Elder Street to reduce the fine regarding permits and a approved issue in order that specifies a fine that includes administrative costs, administration costs, and establishes a date payable, or the lien will revert to its original amount. I believe we have someone here to speak on that. I recognize his face. Yes. Hi. Hi. Welcome back. If we know it's going to be this long, we'd have probably put you first up at bat. That's all right. Sorry for the waiting time. Hello again. My name is Clint Morrell. I'm counsel for Corolli Windows and Doors. Do I have the floor now, or? No. Don't get me to line in. I don't know. I have to look and see in the bat, or you can guide me on what we do next. Who do we hear from? Oh, here we go. All right. So you stated your name. All right. Let's hear from the inspector next. Hello again, board. I'm Inspector Cat Reese with the city of Clearwater. This is in reference to case 128-25. They are requesting a lien reduction at 1165 Eldridge Street. I can go through the old slides if you want, but I prefer to just skip down to our recommendation. I think we should have to test it. Okay, so in reference to case 128-25, the city's total cost is $1,707.20. The city does not support granting a lien reduction until all open code violations have been brought into compliance. Should the lien reduction subsequently be granted, the city recommends that the reduced lien amount be no less than the city's improved costs. Okay. Well, I have a question before you step away. Is it, I'm getting the idea that it's not in compliance, is that correct? The violation that was brought before the board has been met, so it is now in compliance, but there is still an open stop work order that has been ignored that will be brought before the code board shortly. So that is why the city is not recommending the lien reduction until all violations are in compliance. Your general rule is if the violation that this money isn't tied to, the fine, has become in compliance, then you can hear a reduction. That's been your rule in the past. However, there is a consideration of what else is going on with the property, and the only thing I would tell you in that is it may be a consideration on whether or not you're going to reduce the fine. So the board may want to look into whether or not you want to delay making a finding until the rest of the code cases are resolved. This is all at your discretion. That would be my first instinct. I have some questions. Yes, please. Well, I think we should hear their thing because I – Well, okay. What is the – I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind. Yeah, go ahead. What is the stop work order regarding? Was the fence done without a permit or – So do you see these blue awnings right here? Yes. They are – they have footings. It needs engineer signing seal plans. It needs to get permitted. It looks like it's coverage for whatever they do back there for work. It's very difficult. So this was – this was, at the time, had nothing in the property back in 2019. So this is from 2025, and there are all these awnings throughout the property. We don't know the setbacks. We don't know any of that, but it does require a permit because it is – it is into the ground. Okay. But this land – I'm sorry. I was going to say the stop work order is in reference to specifically those. That is correct. It was separate from the fence because that requires its own permit. All right. How – I – when I first started, again, was going down a list. So that is why it wasn't met at the same time. It was an overwhelming amount of cases to take over. I'm sure. So – but I did make the attorney aware at our last Code Board meeting that they also had this violation. I've sent the notices. That will be brought before the Code Board within the next two months. Okay. So the fence was permitted? That is correct. It was inspected and is now in compliance, and that permit is closed? Yes, sir. All right. Good. All right. Any other questions to the inspector before we move forward? We have a $10,500 desired lien reduction here. It's more than an advocation. That's the total amount of the currently – we, of course, would like to hear the entirety. My understanding is that the general policy is it doesn't go below what is the cost of having handled the matter, which I think is a reasonable position. So we're not challenging that. So we would request it down to those administrative costs. I wasn't sure what that figure was at the time when I submitted this. It says the lien reduction is for the full amount, but we know that that's not going to be the case. As far as – does that answer your – No, I was actually asking the inspector because I have questions for you. Okay. So as I was saying, we have a $10,500 lien reduction. In the letter that the – I guess the company sent the president, they said when they first received the Code Enforcement Board's first notices regarding the code violations for a fence, they weren't aware. They thought it was grandfathered in. But I'm sure the city has a website that says fences have to be permitted, you know, if you're putting a new fence in, it all has to be permitted. That is correct. And that's what you – I'm sure you would advise. Yes, our notice of violations goes over the code and as to what needs to get permitted. So they have been made aware legally by notice of violation. Right. Okay. So in their letter, they're saying they didn't understand that, but I don't see how they could not. But anyway, so now I will direct my questions to you. So you represented him, this company, back in October? I didn't. Well, so let me turn it back up. My firm has represented this company for a while. I was first brought in, as far as I know, the firm was first brought in to handle this code violation matter in the December timeframe after the notice went out of December 19th of 2025 for the hearing that took place on January 28th of this year. So you're Mr. Morrell? I am, Mr. Morrell. Okay, so in the case, in the minutes of October 22nd, it says you were present. At the October meeting? No. It's in our minutes. Okay. That's an error on my part, then. I apologize for that. Just to those, that when they came to me, there were communications with Kat. And I don't mean – we're not saying Kat did anything wrong. Kat communicated to them. And she advised that there had been some modifications to the fence or that the fence wasn't the same as it had been and that it therefore needed to be grandfathered in. But when they came to me to respond to the notices that had been sent, their understanding at the time was that this fence, I think they said it had been in place since the 60s. They thought it was grandfathered. There was a concern that they would not be able to keep the barbed wire fence in place under the current code. And so they wanted – that's why they were, you know, stuck on this idea that it was grandfathered. I reviewed with them with the assistance of Kat. We, you know, advised that there were some changes made to the fence. We understand that the fence had been there for quite some time. But the gate was moved. I think the location of the gate was moved. The yellow items were put up. Some of the slats in the fence were changed. And there may have been a few other things. So at that time, when I appeared, we did agree to undertake the changes to the fence. I apologize for the date error in this letter. I assisted with drafting the letter. It's my error. The – after the Code of Enforcement Board made its order, my client did endeavor to obtain the permits as quickly as possible. There was an issue with a vendor on the property that actually damaged the gate. That resulted in an insurance claim. The scope of the work at that point expanded. Apparently, there's an issue with getting the gate to actually install. And that all tied up and delayed some of the process. Notwithstanding, they did submit the permit in February of this year. And that's, you know, a few months after the understanding developed and the effort started to actually get the gate resolved. So that's the basis. I think there's a little more detail in the letter for the request for the reduction. As to the other matter, I unfortunately do not have much information. I was made aware that that was an item. I thought that it had also been resolved. I didn't know that it was still proceeding and pending forward. So I'm going to certainly go back and, you know, talk with my client about that one. But to the extent they're unrelated, we would request the board to consider a reduction, notwithstanding. I still have another question for the gentleman. So when did these contractors and the fence got hit by a car and stuff like that, when was all that? February? No, I don't think that was in February. I don't know the exact time period for that. I don't have that with me. The reason I'm asking is because as Member Keene made this motion, and we gave a lien in six months to get this all completed. And so that takes you to January, and then the permit was issued in February. So that violation for the fence has been – it is now in compliance. So, yes, they're asking for a lien reduction since they did come in compliance, and the city agrees. They are in compliance with the fence. However, there is still a separate outstanding violation that needs to be corrected. That is why the city is not suggesting that we do the lien reduction at this time. I'm sorry, what did you just say? Yeah. The whole thing? That's the metaphors I'm looking for. You're recommending it. We are not recommending a lien reduction until all of the violations on the property are brought into compliance. Once that is done, they can go ahead and put in for another lien reduction, and we can redo the cost to the city and then move from there. But it's ultimately up to you. Is there another order out there for this other violation? There's an open stop work order. It is pending code word. And it has fines for that? No. No fines until it's, you know, an adabit of noncompliance is given. This lien reduction was just for the fence is my point. Right, right. Exactly. I have a viewpoint and a suggestion. As the chairman did, it would seem to me, logically thinking, that if there is an existing stop work order on the property, much like if an owner has other properties and they're looking to separate, it would seem to me that the logical move is to delay consideration of any lien reduction until the other case is fully cleared and handled. And then if either the city or the owner wants to bring it back before it's fully cleaned up, then it would seem more appropriate to consider it at that point in time. But I'm open to suggestions or questions or other viewpoints. My recommendation is we deny the request because I looked over their justifications and I didn't agree with the justifications. Okay. And then if they want to come back and apply later, they can. Well, if we deny it, one of the counsels should answer this, but one of them is speaking. I'm inquiring right now because I don't think we've had – once it's denied, it's denied. I'm not aware of a specific code provision that would say that they couldn't apply. I know in other boards that I've worked with, we would discuss whether the denial was with or without prejudice is the terms that the courts often use when they want to dispose of something and not revisit it again. I would say that since they have another case that they could potentially come back in front of the board, we don't have an objection to the denial being without prejudice, which would mean that they could come back and ask for everything again. That would be our position if they wanted to come back later. We just don't think that it makes sense to have it be piecemeal when there are other issues. We'd like for the reductions to be brought to the board when the entire property is in compliance and there are no compliance issues. But we discussed this before it came, and there's no rule that says that they can't come back piecemeal. And obviously, we think people are entitled to the hearings if they want to come in front of the board. We don't want on the staff level to say, no, you can't even get in front of the board. So we're having the hearing. Our position is that it shouldn't be piecemeal. If you want to deny it, we have no objection to a denial without prejudice. If you wanted to make it a denial with prejudice, certainly that's within your purview. To understand a denial with prejudice means that it's done and we're not allowing any and there's no future. A denial without prejudice means that they could submit again? That would be my interpretation. I've seen it done that way. I would certainly defer to the council for the board if you had a different position. What would the difference be between that and simply saying we want to delay it until the properties and compliance of the other cases cleaned up? Is there any difference between the two other than the fines continue to accrue? Well, they wouldn't because they're in compliance, but what would be the difference? Is there a difference? I think there's a suggestion. What if they just withdraw their application and come back later? Can they do that? Yes. Who said yes? He said yes. Who said the attorney said yes? I want to hear it from the council. Yes. Yes. I said yes. And then I drank some water. Yes. So that would, based on what I heard, would we be willing to withdraw the application? I can submit it, correcting the error of it. I hear willing, but I didn't hear a request. Oh, yes. The report would allow us to withdraw this request pending reapplication and correction. I don't hear any objections to that. We have no objection to that. That would be pretty all concerned. Yes. I think so. Thank you. All right. Done, then. Thank you. Do we need to, I guess we don't need to do anything with that if the presenter. There is nothing to do, right. All right. It's no longer on before you. Well, there's something you're doing today. My goodness. All right. Based on experience, we're going to approve all of the affidavits of compliance as one motion. So I would like to have a motion from the board to approve the affidavits of compliance listed each by number, please. You can do one motion just recognizing the affidavits of compliance under 5.1 of your agenda. Good. I'm ready for a motion from somebody. I motion to approve all the affidavits in 5.1. In favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right. Next case, 5.2 case on our agenda. Case 183-25, accept the affidavits of noncompliance for respondents Elizabeth Anderson at 200 Leeward Island for unsafe buildings. Inspector Larson? Good afternoon, board. I'm James Larson. Bear with me, just a second, Inspector, if you would. Sir? We don't, do we call for public on these or no, necessarily? Not normally unless there is somebody out there who wants to speak on their particular case. Otherwise, I mean, we've had this discussion several times. I know. You can, my opinion, the city objects, my opinion is that you can just accept the affidavit of noncompliance as presented because they've already presented the case. And you've made a finding, and they're telling you it didn't come in compliance. Right. I don't think we need testimony to say it didn't come in compliance. We have an affidavit, a sworn affidavit, saying it didn't. I agree. So I would say unless there's somebody here that wants to speak on an affidavit of noncompliance, I would say that you should probably take each one separately and just vote on them, accepting the affidavit of noncompliance. That's typically what we've done in the past. That's the only reason I ask is because I see public in the audience, and I want to make sure I'm... No, and that, again, is up to the board if they want to hear from those people. All right. Without an objection from the board, we'll just move forward with the cases. Okay. Unless somebody has an objection to that. All right. Sorry, Inspector, you have the floor. I'll come, my picture's not up there. Wait. So this is the affidavit of noncompliance? Yes, sir. I just wanted to make sure you guys knew exactly which property we're talking about. Okay. It's the one on Leeward Island. No. There you go. No, no, no. It's individual. I think you guys all recognize that. I'm going to show you which one it is. It just hasn't come into compliance. That's what it looks like right now. If we do have someone here that wants to speak, is that correct? Are you here for 200 Leeward Island? Yes, ma'am. Can you get up and speak? Yes, sir. If you want to talk, how's the talk? I think it's equitable for fruit and courteous to allow the owner to speak. Yeah, we don't have, I mean, just, there are not strict rules of, as if we had to trial. There is some general rules we follow, but you can always take input if the board so chooses. I hate to have her sit here all day. Thank you guys for keeping my dog alive. I was going to leave him in the car. So thank you. That's all about it. You'd have been a daughter by now. I owe you that. Can you? I got, I got, I got, I got Florida, I'm sorry, ma'am, you need to identify yourself. Yes, please. Elizabeth Anderson, do you want to see my driver's light? No, we're good. No, just, the board needs to know who you are. I got, I got, Florida recovers. They said they might redo my house. So, I, because I've been, I've got, I called a lot of contractors and, boy, no wonder you guys have a city list. There, some of them are crazy. I tell one in Tampa that there's no roof and I need help. He calls up and says, how dare you? You know, there's no roof. You know, I tell, so I had, I have a lot of contractors I got to FEMA. I'm sorry, I'm a little nervous. Take your time. Yes, sir. Just take your time. I'm going to cry. Like, I want to be a feminist. God. Okay. What else? I, I, I got foundation. I sent that to FEMA. 60,000. I could get a loan to fix the foundation. But I don't have much to do with it in peace. No, but the whole house is gone. Every furniture, everything, everything in the house is gone. Except for a dog. And you. And me. And I'm gone. From the whole thing. So, I don't want to look like a sympathetic act. But I have to recover. So, um, I'm going to go there. I just want to see what plans. Because they want to rebuild the house. You know, I live on an island of the states. I've lived there 57 years. And you can't just rebuild it in some. They're a different breed that lives there now. When I moved there, there were normal people. Now, my neighbor, he calls me up and says, when are you getting your ass out of there so I can rebuild? So he can get a mansion up there. You know, he wants me out. And I'm like Carla Fredrickson in Ups because I haven't left. Elizabeth, I have a request. Can you tell us what the letter says, please? Should I put in this? That would be good. Thank you. I just want to see what the letter says, if you don't mind. I was a nurse in Morton Plant. And now, if I went back there, everything's ticked them off. That's right. Exactly. I would be fired immediately. Drop it in. Just face up. Face up. Like you're going to read it. There you go. We can read that. Can we read that? Can we make it so it's closer in so we can read it? If I came up to you, thank you. She's got an application for assistance. It looks like the amount of $25,000 and change. What? You fill out an application for $25,000. We're covering January. Yeah. And it's taken in this one. And I have two options. I can either pay $25,618.18 with the money FEMA gave me and they'll start working. Or I cannot pay that and have a little cheaper house. Maybe a duty calls house. It's not funny. Sure. But nothing's been done at the house. Well, go ahead. And frankly, I mean, I think counsel would argue or the inspector would argue we're beyond that point because this case was heard previously. There were times given. There were probably fines assessed and we're at the point where it's been going on so long that we're here to rule on an affidavit of noncompliance. What the city does after that, I mean, the only reason the case is before us is to rule on an affidavit of noncompliance and if nothing has occurred and the inspector is showing his current pictures, then I don't want to be the bad guy. But, I mean, that is factually why we're here. We've been down this road before where we've had cases brought before us and we started, you know, there was a bit of hand wringing and so on and so forth. But at the end of the day, we're here to rule on whether or not, you know, there's a valid reason to rule on an affidavit of noncompliance. So, beyond that, I mean, we can get way off into the weeds on a number of subjects about the case and the individual and everything else. And so. You've heard the case. You provided an order. Precisely. Right. Procedurally, you're accepting the affidavit of noncompliance. Right. There's no new evidence that changes whether or not you're not in compliance, right? Correct. Well, who can afford to be in compliance? They want the contractors, you know. I understand that. But I think your remedies lie outside of the board here. Our hands are somewhat tied by the fact that, you know, even if we rule today and rule on an affidavit of noncompliance, that doesn't stop your efforts outside of this board from doing whatever you're going to do. This is simply a formality on our part that moves the city process along, and you're still entitled to do whatever it is you're going to do with the property. I didn't want to, you know, I never, I didn't want to lose my home. I loved my home, but. I understand. I mean, I have nothing left there. You know, and my lawyer, he's supposed to do with the safety recall. You know, the car blew the whole house up. Everything in it. Yeah. Understood. I wish there was more that we could do for you, but I think your remedies are outside of what this board can do. And the house doesn't listen on. Or here, again, as a formality to move the city process along, but, you know, perhaps with what you've done here and with other potential remedies that are out there, then you'll, you know, you'll find a way to get it done. But that's outside of our area of responsibility and expertise, and so we're not here to be hard on you. I'm very sympathetic to your case, but, you know, at the end of the day, we're. How long can you keep it like that, I know? Yeah, exactly. I mean. I could get a roof. You could get a tarp maybe so it didn't look so bad, but. Well, again, that's a discussion to be had with your inspector in the building department. We're here today to rule on the affidavit, and that's about all we're able to do today. So I wish we could do more, but we cannot. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming. I'm sorry you had to wait so long. And I'm glad your dog's okay. I'm sorry that I died. No, thank you for coming. I appreciate it. And good luck to you. We'll keep our fingers crossed for you. Thank you, guys. You bet. Don't buy a high on day, though. That's all I'm going to say. From Fitzgerald to get in mind. Any other comments or questions from the board on this case? Just very well said, Mr. Chairman. Say again? What? Very well said, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. You ready? All right. I'm ready for a motion. I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance, an issue in order that imposes fines and states that 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. Did I hear a second? Yes. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, board. Thank you. Item 5.3 on our agenda continued from March 25, 2026, Case 186-25. Accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondents level 13, Asset Management, LLC, at 534 South Keystone Avenue for permits. Dr. Reese? Property is not in compliance. Okay. Thank you. May I have a motion? 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. I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion carries. Item 5.4 has been withdrawn. Item 5.5 has been withdrawn. Item 5.6, Case 20-26. Accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondents Troy Allen and Mary Blythe at 413 Pleasant Street for permits. Inspector Reese? Property is not in compliance. 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. Item 5.7. Excuse me. Case 26-26. Accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondents City Square LLC at 522. I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt, but I believe, I may be incorrect, but I believe that these folks were here for that previous case. Oh, they're here for 522, clearly. Oh, is that the case we're on now? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. Well, it's good timing. Okay. I was close. I was close. All right. I'm going to finish reading this. Okay, thank you. Case 26-26. Accept the affidavit of noncompliance for city respondents City Square LLC at 522 Cleveland Street for permits. And you're here to speak on this? Yes. All right. What would you like to tell us? So I'm a tenant of 520 and 522, representing City Square LLC. He's our landlord. We have been in contact with the city every day. Every day we email, we go back and forth. We've had probably a couple times a week we have email documentation saying that we feel like the goalpost has been moved several times. We've done the best we can. We've needed the old permits to be voided. They voided all the permits, and we talked to our contractor that we've had on file. We've had three contractors, two of which have no longer want to work with us because of the city's issues. The current contractor we have is Magnet Corp. LLC. They amended the permit, BCP206030522, was told to wait for voided old permits. We waited, and we've been just at the administrative's beck and call. We have never heard from Reese. I've met her when I was here last time. She has not been to our establishment. It's closed. I'm losing money every week since it's been closed. We still pay rent to Kathy. We still try to do everything we can to remedy these issues. The landlord has also expressed that she has not received this letter. The only reason why we're here today is because we're on top of this, because we know things are trying to get pushed through without us actually knowing what's going on. I called her. She expressed that she asked for an address change. She did not receive notice of the hearing. Who is she? Kathy Penagolas. The owner of the property. Yes. The owner of the city square LLC. City square LLC. So we have documentations, e-mails. I've met with not only fire, city officials, CRA directors. I've met with everyone. My wife's the one. Yeah, so I do most of the e-mailing and the conversations back and forth. So as of this morning, I actually touched base. This is before we even know that we were, this was on the board. I actually touched base with the contractor and Rebecca Mulder, yes, sorry, this morning to make sure that everything was still going the way it was supposed to be going because we are doing our best to make sure that all these permits and everything are filed the way they're supposed to be. We have been waiting the last, I don't even know how many weeks because we needed old permits to be voided in order for the new permits to be placed or to amend. And so that's what we've been waiting on. I was in e-mail, I can show you the e-mail conversation with Rebecca stating, you know, can you approve that we are going to void out all of these older permits with contractors that we are no longer in conversation with, that we can't even find communication to get in contact with them. So that, there's twice that that happened. She asked me to approve the voids and that's where we were at. So when I checked with our contractor, they kept saying they're not voided yet. We were told to wait because of the miscommunication of last time. There was too many permits. They didn't know what was new, what was old, what's the correct one, what's not the correct one. And so that's why we agreed that we were going to void all the old ones and just have the one singular permit with everything under the scope of what needed to be fixed. We would just like to have a meeting and sit down with whoever is on with her. I'd love to meet with her. We've never met with her. Okay. Let us talk with her. Of course. I appreciate your input very much. Okay. Let's get some more data here. Okay. The scope of work was settled in code board. That was made clear when the order to come in compliance was set. There is no issued permit. There is no active permit on file. The permit that I presented before the board showed that I submitted for a permit but uploaded nothing. That still stays the exact same state as it is today, as it was when I presented it. I have had no communication from the tenants. My communication has been with the property owner as well as her attorney who assured me that if they did not get the permit, that the property owner would because I advised her. She's ultimately responsible and it would be a civil matter for them going forward. That's all I have. There is no issued permit. It's not in compliance. Was there a permit ever issued for the work that was done? Not that I'm aware of. No, it may have been because this was one of those very old cases. But the new permit that was put in just sits with nothing being uploaded. I've had no phone calls from the tenant. I made aware to him in the hallway, keep in communication with me. I'm happy to work with everybody. That has not happened. Good questions. Mr. Chair, can we also just, if Madam Clerk, could you verify how notice was provided for this particular matter? I just also have a question for them. Do you have, you're saying that you had permits that got voided out. Do you have those numbers? Yes. Permit numbers? It was mailed to City Square LLC in Chicago, the notice. And it was signed for. That would have been the owner, correct? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, so these are the tenants? These are the tenants. And the tenants are responsible for the permits? Well, if they built the space out. I mean, ultimately, I'm not really one to provide the opinion. It should come from the building department. But ultimately, we've heard from inspectors before that any construction requires permits. And according to the inspector, no permits were pulled for the work that was done if permits were voided. But according to Inspector Reese, there was no permit on it. And there may have been an application filed by original contractor. But who knows? All we know from Inspector Reese is that there are no and more and more permits for the work. And so I think what the city's asking is that it be permitted in present time. The work that was done and the scope of that work was clearly established in one of our previous hearings. And all the city can do is go against the property owner. Whatever the property owner's involvement with tenants has nothing to do with how the city has to look at these. Exactly. Because we can't bring cases against tenants. Understood. And while the tenants' data is welcome, and I understand the pickle they're in, ultimately, our job is to look at whether the property at this point, again, like I addressed previously, is look at whether or not it's in compliance. Right. Because the city's asking for an affidavit of noncompliance because the orders that we issued in our previous hearings spelled out what the inspector spelled out what the scope of work was. And we issued orders saying you have so much time to get into compliance. And we're at a point now later in time where the inspector has requested that we make motion on the fact that today they're not in compliance. And so that's what our duty is here today on this particular case. I think our argument is saying that we would be. If we hadn't. We can literally be in compliance right this minute. Also, the last time that we were here. The voids weren't. But what ended up happening is the void was they voided the wrong one. They voided all. And so now. The second thing is last time that we had the permits, they were the scope of work or the scope of compliance, like you guys are illustrating, was HVAC systems that were not, that wasn't an HVAC system. It was a fan with a filter. There was a bunch of stuff that were on that, that there was a plumbing issue. They said there was water lines, no water. I understand. And that was the last time they were here. But those arguments lie between either you and or the owner with the building code official in terms of what is the true scope of work and what's necessary to require the violation. So that argument is to be had with the code compliance officer and or the building department in the process of pulling permits. Okay? You iron out what is it we have to do. And getting that understanding, that's between you and. And so while I appreciate the data and the explanation, that doesn't change our duty or our looking at an evaluation of the fact that there was a previous order issued regarding that there were, that was work done without permits. That case was brought forth to us and we ruled on it and allowed so much time for it to get in compliance. And here we sit here today and based on our previous order and data from the code officer, it's not in compliance. It doesn't mean you can't go out there and talk to these guys and get it in compliance. What it means is that we're getting data that says, okay, we ruled on it and said you had so much time and here we are today. And it's not in compliance. And so our job today is to look at it and say, is it in compliance or is it not? And what do we do with that? Of course, the remedy solution is to try to get compliance while communicating with the city and the city officials, right? Right. And anyone who's in regards to that. We're describing not that what you're saying isn't true, is that we proceed with what you're asking. Right. We have documentation and emails doing exactly what you ask. Right. And then we're now coming back and there's going to be a set precedent that doing what you guys ask does not render the situation. There's an underlying issue of what I would argue an ineffective process that is negatively affecting your citizens, which I would argue is you do. And so I'm not saying that it's not within the threshold of your authority. I'm saying that the process of which you're describing has been followed. And now, and because of the administration or this current administration, whatever, those things that you described for us that are now put on ownership are unable to be done and have been done according to what you're asking. You said to communicate, to illustrate the concern, have documentation, and we can't fix a problem if we don't have a scope. We can't fix a problem if the scope was inaccurate. Well, and that's a discussion to be had with the Code Compliance Officer to nail the scope down. I mean, they do that every day in terms of giving homeowners or giving property owners the understanding of what do I have to do to comply so I can make this go away. And that's what we did. We actually sat with the inner group and the fire department and every official there, technically there. I was there with two of my staff asking, what do we need to do and what's the scope of it? Multiple building officials were there. It was described, it was said, and then the goalposts moved, not until we got to it. What does that mean, the goalposts was moved? It means that, like, let's say, let's do this. You have to do this. Okay, cool. This is all we have to do. I remember saying, I will do whatever you guys need. Just tell me what we need to proceed to do it. And then later on, as we left, I'm not saying that I'm willing to do whatever it has. I'm one of the bigger builders in downtown Clearwater. Anything you guys want, I'll do. I just want to be able to. I think the frustrating part is we're right there. We were just waiting on the city staff to avoid out the loop of this, and we would have had it done, prior to today, had it been done correctly. It's not an issue of funding. It's not an issue of funding. It's not an issue of development. I got it. Mr. Gary, did you have something to offer? Yes. I just want to make the board aware that this has been ongoing for several years. The staff, from director level to inspector level, have met with these people numerous times. We've gotten lip service over and over again. What we get submitted is absolute garbage. It's not worth anything. And when they say it's being voided out, that's exactly why it's being voided out. Things don't make sense. It's nonsensical. And we have done everything in the world to try and get these people into compliance, and they resist. They give you lip service and say, yes, yes, I'll do whatever needs to be done, but they do not. I just want you to be aware of that. Thank you. And you're talking about the city square LLC. If I may. Excuse me. Let me just ask. Are you talking about the tenants or the owner or both or what? The tenants. I have talked to the owner, and she assures that she's going to make sure that it gets done. They've hired consultants. Kathy is her first name, and her last name is probably Patagolis. Patagolis, yeah. And she's, last I talked to her, she's living in Orlando. And she assured us that she was going to get things done. But when she puts it back onto the, she had a consultant, maybe two, and they have come and gone. Our assistant director has been out there and walked through the property. It's just ongoing, and we get nowhere. And the whole issue, the property owners are in compliance. Or not. Pretty much. That's what I just said. Then why don't we go forward with that instead of all of us others? I'm ready. I just wanted a good understanding. You know, we're dragging it out with the tenants, and it's not up to the tenants. Well, okay. Any other questions or input from the board? All right. I'm, Inspector Reese, did you have one of, anything else to offer? I think we're good. Okay, good. All right. I'm ready for a motion. I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issued 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 select, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right. Page 28-26, accept the affidavits of noncompliance for respondents proactive property management at 3404 Brigadier Circle for permits. Inspector Reese? The property is not in complaint. All right. May I have a motion? 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. I second it. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Number 5.9 on our agenda, case 33-26, accept the affidavits of noncompliance for respondents Hannah Batara and Maria Ibrahim at 4404 Brigadier Circle for permits. And that property is not in compliance. All right. 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. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right. Moving on to nuisance abatement lien filings. Item 6.1 on the agenda, case 123-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Wanda Vickers and John Garner at 2044 Los Lovos Drive for an operative vehicle and issue an order with a compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. I think there was somebody on the previous case. Are you hearing for 4,004 Brigadier? Oh, there it is. Good job. All right. Let's hold up a second here. Uh-oh. We have a gentleman here for 4,004 Brigadier. Yes. I think we have already ruled on his case. You could bring him forward and listen to what he has to say. Sir, please come forward. We have no objection. Our preference is to hear from the individual. I'm sorry. You've been here this whole time. I didn't realize you were here. That's funny. Apologize. We still have a number of cases. I'm sorry. I didn't catch you, so my apologies, sir. No, it's okay. What would you like to tell us? My name is Garek. I'm the son of Madiha and Hannah. I'm the owners. Was he been sworn? So could you just, were you sworn in when you came in? Yes. Okay. I've been here the whole time. Yeah, I've been here. Three hours, huh? Three hours just for this. Pierre Daniel. Pierre. Pierre Daniel. Yes. Thank you. Please go ahead. So, yeah, so I was told about this. Again, this is a home that my mom and dad, they rented out. My mom is, like, working full time. My dad had a stroke. So I'm, like, helping them out with it. I don't have the best experience when it comes to, like, contractors. I was, I mean, someone, like, took money for me to do a job once, and they never, like, took. It's not the best thing to deal with. I don't know a lot of people to do that. And, again, this, we bought the house like that. It's been there for, like, 20 years. I, like, I just don't know who to go to. And, again, this is a lot of money, too. I was just here before. And then Kat has been really helpful, like, trying to give me a lot of time. But I was working in the other house trying to fix other violations. It was, like, the fence and all that stuff. So I was working with that. And, again, it's, like, not a lot of money to do this stuff when the house is not really bringing them anything. Like, whatever they make from the house just goes in this. That's it. Okay. Well, thank you for coming. I'm sorry you had to wait so long for this. But I appreciate the input. Well, we've already ruled on this case and asserts a motion to rehear it. I mean, in essence, you'd be changing your findings. If you're not going to change your findings, then there's no reason to make a motion. So I guess the bottom line is, does anybody want to make a motion to reopen? I don't think so. I just have a question for Pierre. So what you're saying, sir, is that they don't have money to do it, so they can't do it? Well, the money is very tight right now. As I said, my dad is not working. My mom is the only one supporting the house. So there's not a lot of money. And there's a lot of expenses that they have. So right now, when we just finished the fence and all this stuff, there's not a lot of money right now to pull that permit. And I don't even know how much that will cost. But I know contractors are very, very expensive. And I don't even know if I hire someone, will they go through it or not. And what is the situation? Is this the patio that was built? Yes. Okay, thank you. Do you have anything you said? We've already. Unless there's a motion to revisit it and reopen it and invalidate our earlier ruling with the intent to change the ruling or change the acceptance of the nuisance abitement, then there's no point. We, the city, we would object to revisiting the older ruling. But we have, and there have been situations where if the board saw that the affidavit of noncompliance, if compliance was closed, the board postponed the acceptance of the affidavit and delayed adjudication in that way. It doesn't sound like that's the situation here. And my recommendation would be that the gentleman and his family pursue the lien reduction process once they are able to sort that out because that's going to be available to them any time frame. And that's the proper forum for presenting all of the hardships and all of the many things that you, the bumps along the road that you encounter when you're coming into compliance. And that's where the board can take into consideration all those things and reduce the board. And as the board's well aware, the city is usually very deferential to the board, and we don't normally take a very hard position in reducing those fines unless there are some extraordinary circumstances where we would object to a reduction. Otherwise, we'll, you know, we completely, you know, defer to the board in hearing out the circumstances. Did you understand what he was saying? Okay. I'm happy to step out and speak with him. That would be awesome. That would be great. I think that's the, that's a good path to follow. You guys just, just need you to come to the microphone. To the microphone, please. Basically, you guys just already decided what was going on, and then that's why you can't go back and change what you decided. Well, they could go back, but they were choosing not to. Yeah, I don't think that's the best resolution, the best path forward to go back and revisit it. You have other remedies available that Mr. Simpson will discuss with you. I mean, other, other things that you can do along the way as you get this accomplished. So what was the judgment, that I was going to be fine, $150 a day? I believe that. It is, but you can then ask once you get what you did, what needs to be the noncompliance that's happening right now. Once that's fixed, you come back and you ask for a lien reduction. It will take away, potentially, if it's done correctly in a certain amount of time, then you can, for that to be moved. I want that to be the whole amount? No, no, no. Like if you're, let's say it's $10,000, you can come back and say, I would like it reduced. There will be an admin fee that gets attached to that, but it's usually like $1,000. But it really just depends on how you get it all. There will be administrative costs. There will be an administrative cost. The city has certain administrative costs that occur. We can't go below that. Yeah. As the city does their paperwork and accrues their, what time they have in dealing with this administratively, they accrue some costs. Okay. So, I just want to understand, like instead of me hiring a contractor to do this, now I'm going to be fine $150 a day. You can still, you can still, I'm able to do that? You can still move forward and, and, and get the thing in compliance and then. I know, but it's going to take a lot of days and I don't know how much I'm going to get fined. I understand that. What we're telling you is that there are remedies to help. There are potential remedies to help reduce that once it's, once it's done. You can, you ask for a reduction. I understand, but it's reduction. I'm still going to have to pay a lot of money. I don't even know how long would that take. The process for me to find a contractor, for them to pull the permit. It's not even, I'm not, I'm not the only one suffering with this. A lot of people are suffering with this. But like, in my case, my parents are just not able to do all of that. So, I don't understand if I was not there, how would they go on and deal with all of that? Well, either way, it's the, at some point it's got to get remedied one way or the other. Okay. And once it does, then. I don't want to waste your time if it's nothing to be done. Okay. Sorry. Sorry about that. Thank you for coming. All right. Move on, move for half a day. Yep. Actually, we're doing nuisance abatement things. Item 6.1, Case 123-26. Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Wanda Vickers and John Garner. At 2044 Los Lomas Drive for an operative vehicle. Initial order with a compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Casman. Hello, everyone. I'll try to make this short. Good afternoon, Board. Good afternoon, Board. Daniel Casman, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is Case 123-26 for 2044 Los Lomas Drive. This is for nuisance abatement. There's one violation here for Code Section 3-1503B6 for an operative vehicle. These are the dates of violation went out, along with the updated posting. This is 2444 Los Lomas. This came as a complaint from the HOA. There's two vehicles in the driveway there. There'll be a closer photo, but in this one, the tag is two years expired on both of the vehicles. This is a better look at the other one. Antique tag. Your plate's an antique. Yeah. I posted the property. I still haven't got anything back from the owners. I've been told if someone is living in there, but they've never tried to contact me. I went back to the compliance date. Same issue. Both tags are still out. And then this was this morning. Still two years expired. Compliance man for an operative vehicle by displaying a license plate with current tag on all vehicles on the premises. Testing compliance on every four or five days from the date of board records its order. Any questions from the board? 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 the reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property. If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Is, okay. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. All right. Next case, 124-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Clearwater Pharma, LLC, CARA, CVS, number 3615 at 1899 Highland Avenue, North Highland Avenue, for lot clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violence. Exactly. Violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Casman. Go ahead. Good afternoon again, Board. Dean McCasman, Code Enforcement Inspector for the city of Clearwater. This is case number 124-26 for 1899 North Highland Avenue, nuisance abatement. There's one violation here for Code Section 3-1503B5A for lot clearing. These are the dates and those violations that with the updated posting. This came in as a complaint from the crossing guards there. It's the old abandoned CVS there. There's a bunch of old barricades left around the sign, which are derelict at this point. This is my posting on the 7th. There's some also like a vacuum cleaner left on the other side. There's also bits and bobs strewn about the property, trash here and there. This was after the compliance date. Again, the grounds, there's a fair amount of little bit of trash piling up. And then the dumpster corral in the back, there also seems to be some vagrancy happening back there with personal items. It's been that way for a while. This was today. The same items were piled up around the sign out front. Again, same trash, same thing in the dumpster corral. And then one of the big tree branches seems to have fallen down during one of the last rains. So that also needs to be addressed. So compliance met for lot clearing by removing all trash and debris from the premises, including broken barricades and the fallen tree lip. And I'm requesting compliance on it five days before the date renders its order. I'm sorry. Requesting compliance on it before five days until the date the board renders its order. Thank you. 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 responsible, reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property. If cost, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. I have a second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a motion for Madam Secretary's request to continue Case 125-26 until June 24th? Anybody? Yes. I second. No, I need to hear a motion. Motion to extend to June 24th. I was swallowing. I could have got it out. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next case, Item 6.4 on Agenda, Case 126-26. Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondent Nyan Lari, LLC, at 2075 Camellia Drive for inoperative vehicle and issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Sutteth, do you have a clear? Hello again. Vicki Sutteth with the City of Clearwater, Code Enforcement Inspector. This is for case number 126-26 for 2075 Camellia Drive. There is one violation here, Code Section 3-1503B6 for inoperable vehicle, outdoor storage nuisance. Notice the violation was posted and mailed on 4-21 of 2026 with a compliance date of May 1st of 2026. I did not receive the certified mail, so I did post the property on 4-21. This is a picture of the vehicle on 4-21. It does have a current tag on it, but it has flat tires and the windshield, as you can see, was busted out of it. And the taillights. This is a copy of the posting that I posted on the vehicle on 4-21. And then this was this morning when I went back. It's still sitting there in the same condition. Compliance can be met by removing the vehicle from the property or make repairs to the vehicle as roadworthy, as well as display a current license plate that is assigned to the vehicle. Requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. That's a car that didn't have insurance. She says that it did. She says that just because it doesn't have flat tires and the windshield's busted out does not mean it's inoperable. No headlights, no taillights. Any questions? No. 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 cost, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second it. All right. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next case. Item 6.5 on the agenda, case 127-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Nathan Evans at 917 Eldridge Street for inoperative vehicle and lot clearing and issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Dixon. Good afternoon, board. Inspector Gregory Dixon, co-compliance office, City Clearwater. This is case 127-26 for 917 Eldridge Street. There's two violations at the property, one for inoperable vehicles and one for lot clearing. The property was posted in April on the compliance date ten days later. There's a lot going on here. The whole behind the fence is full of trash, debris, overgrowth. There's ABVs hiding in the weeds. Some of them are taking over some of the vehicles. And this was this morning. It's essentially in the same state. It looked like some cleanup was happening, but I think they just moved stuff so they could back this truck and trailer in there, but not to remove anything. So the red truck obviously disabled, the RV. There's refrigerators, all sorts of things. Back in the backyard, back in those weeds, back in the back corner, there's a car that you can't see anymore. You can't mess along. This is the other side of the house. And next door is a Habitat for a community home that they've recently built in the last couple of years. So compliance can be met for the inoperable vehicles by removing the inoperable vehicles from the property or make repairs and vehicles to the road worthy as well as display a current license plate assigned to the vehicle. Compliance can be met for the lot of clearing by clearing all overgrowth and debris from the property. I'm requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. Thank you, sir. Questions? May I have a motion? I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property, to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable costs, which will become a lien on the property. If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien and file, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. We have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Moving on, Item 6.6, Case 128-26. Accept the nuisance statement lien for respondents may go to agreeing at 806 Carlton Street for inoperative vehicle and issue an order with a compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Dixon. This is Case 128-26 for 806 Carlton Street. There's one violation of the property for an inoperable vehicle. The property is supposed to be at the end of April, and they're given 10 days to come into compliance. At the time, this vehicle was in the yard. It does have a current tag, but the tires are flat, and it's sinking into the ground. It's been there for quite some time. This van did not have a tag on it. This is today, and the vehicle is still in the same state. Tires are flat. The van was moved to the driveway. I couldn't confirm if it had a good tag on it or not. It used to. I don't know what happened to it. Compliance will be met by removing the inoperable vehicles from the property or make repairs to vehicles roadworthy as well as display a current license plate assigned to the vehicle. I'm requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. Questions? I have a motion. I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance, and charge the respondent with the reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property. If cost fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, and recital such lien. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Last item on the agenda, case 129-26. Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondent, Deborah Hicks, at 1308 Roosevelt Avenue for lot clearing. And issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Dixon. Case 129-26 for 1308 Roosevelt Avenue. One violation for lot clearing of the property. The property is posted in April and given 10 days to come into compliance. This is a community garden that has been constructed on a vacant lot, and it's been some homes. The city does have some guidelines for community gardens that the property will be maintained in orderly, neat condition, consistent with city property maintenance standards. No trash or debris shall be stored or allowed to remain on the property. And also, tools and supplies should be stored indoors or removed from the property daily. This is the property of the day of posting. This has been two years of an in-progress community garden. It's looked a lot worse. It's looking better, but it's still not there. And some of the neighbors are tired of looking at it. So every... When I speak to the operator of the community garden, everything's going to have some sort of future purpose. But some of it looks like to a normal person's trash. So some of these things, I think, can be disposed of. And if there are going to be supplies for some future use, then they either need to be stored in a shed or removed from the property daily. So there's some cement that's hardened there. It's just random things laying around. Boards that possibly could be used later on, but I would say that they are... They're debris now. So this is this morning. There's a lot of things thrown around that I wouldn't necessarily call it trash and debris, but they're definitely supplies that need to find a new home when they're not working on the property. This shed was constructed by hand and wasn't purchased anywhere. And it doesn't look so bad, but the front looks bad. She just needs to complete the front and put some paint on it. But there's just a lot of things that need picked up and remarried. So compliance can be met for lot clearing by following the guidelines set forth in Section 3-2602 for the operational requirements of community gardens in the City of Clearwater and applicable nuisance codes and disposed of any unused or used supplies that are no longer needed, remove all trash and debris from the lot, and keep the lot clear of any overgrowth and vegetation debris, requesting compliance five days after the Board members is ordered. Inspector Dixon, I'm not one to argue with inspectors, but that shed needs a lot more than paint. Yeah, a couple nails. Any questions or comments? No. May I have a motion? I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the Board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the City may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property, to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable costs, which will become a lien on the property. If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the City is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. One last thing before we adjourn. I understand our esteemed counsel, Mr. Simpson, is going to be leaving us for Greener Pastures, also known as the private sector. Yes. You have been a never-ending source of enlightenment and education on a number of issues that have really helped me in the position that I hold, and you will be missed. I hope they replace you with somebody just as good. No, we decided not to let you go. I appreciate it, man. It's been a great pleasure working with the board, and, of course, I asked you to make my final meeting exciting, and you did just that. We have no wrong to you. As long as we could. This is my longest ever in four years. Really? Really? I appreciate all your input and your advice, and seriously, it's been very interesting the amount of data that I've gotten from you from the legal side. I really appreciate that. You've been a great help, Jared. Yes, you have. I really appreciate you saying that. Thank you so much. And good luck to you. When's your last day? We all have work. June 12th is my last day, so this is my last code word meeting. When's your last day? June 12th. That's right. You have a good time. Secretly, he's checked that already. I'm trying not to. So, with that, we're adjourned. Thank you. Hallelujah. Man. Man. Did you? Man. Man. َ...