Municipal Code Enforcement Board on 2026-07-22 1:30 PM - Jul 22, 2026

The Enforcement Board is called to order on July 22, 1926, for the Bible. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, sir. Pledge of Allegiance to July, the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice. Thank you. Please be seated. Agendas of today's meeting are on the wall at 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 who 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 side 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 please rise and be sworn in by the clerk. Our first order of business is to review and approve the minutes of last month's meeting. May I have a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Both minutes are approved. Next on the agenda are new business items. Our first case, 3.1, is continued to September. Next agenda item, 3.2, is also continued to September. Oh, we don't have that. 3.4, it's continued from March. Oh, I see. Yeah, I see it now. It's continued from March, but continued to September 23rd. I got you. All right. I'm with you now. 3.3 is continued from April 22nd, case 84-26. Fine Respondents Mary G. Realty Incorporated at 490 Mandalay Avenue in violation of code for permits and issued an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Inspector Reese, is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Reese, you have the floor. Good afternoon, co-board. I'm Inspector Kat Reese for the City of Clearwater. This is for 490 Mandalay Avenue, case 84-26. It's going slow today. Okay. So we have one violation of this property for Section 4-203.A.1. No person shall commence any construction, demolition, modification, or rentification of a building or structure without first obtaining a building permit. This is specifically for the deck that was installed in front of the – along the storefronts on the property. There were multiple violations. This is a pretty – one of the old cases began September 6th of 2024. Gave multiple compliance dates for this property. This is a posting of my notice of violation back in September. And this is the Google Street View. So what we're talking about today, I know you can't see it here, but it will be the deck along all of this side of the property on the south. And these are the original photos taken from the previous inspector for the deck that was installed. I have had communication with the owner. I have gave him all extensions to get this permitted. He had to speak with zoning. It will not meet zoning. He needs to resubmit plans so that it meets zoning so it can properly get permitted or remove it altogether. Reason being, it's just too hot. It is a hazard for citizens' shopping. So these are just updated photos that I had taken on June 6th. The deck was still there. At this point, I had spoken with multiple contractors, trying to aid them and guide them so that way they can get with zoning. And these are my updated photos from today. The deck itself is starting to peel on the sides. It's become more of a hazard. I've had workers there very happy to see me moving forward with the case. They are concerned as well. So right now, the permit that they applied for is still in revisions needed. The reason for that is because it just can't get approved. They attempted for flexibility. It's just not an option at this time for them. It will not be approved through zoning. I do have those emails if you all want to see from zoning that that is what they have been approved. I've had no patience since then. Compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit that is approved through zoning and completing said permit with inspection. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on August 24, 2026, 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. Any questions? I've got at least one or two myself. Yep. So we know it was built without permits. You said they applied for a permit, but then you also said that they looked at getting a variance, and it's not going to meet the requirements for a variance. So does that mean the only option is to remove it or get rid of it? I know we're off on the side here a little bit in terms of a violation, but I'm just curious as to what the path forward is, whether it's just they're not going to be able to get a permit because they can't get a variance, and it's got to be removed or what? It doesn't necessarily have to be removed. It's the higher portion that needs to be lowered, and then they would just have to submit those revisions that is keeping that permit stuck and revisions needed. Once that is done, they can move forward with the issued permit. They just can't keep it as it is today. When was the last time you spoke with the owner? He came in the office on April 6th of 2026, and then I've had several conversations after with contractors to guide them exactly what was needed, and I referred them to zoning, and zoning took over from that point, and then it's just not going to issue the way it is today. Inspector, I just have one. Do you know how the deck has been? The initial inspection began September 4th of 2024. It went in prior to that date because it was a stop-work order, so the work was already done. So we're just requiring after the fact permit. Correct. Thank you. And then I just noticed it looks like it goes across several businesses. It does, but the owner owns the entire parcel, so he is ultimately responsible. And have any of the business owners come up to you about it? I'm wondering if they're running into trouble with it. Yes, I've had employees come and, goodness, you're doing something. I'm surprised no one has gotten hurt, you know, already with the way it is, so they are happy that this is being presented. Built that out. It was very good to me. To extend the pathway along the storefronts, I believe, but it's just not meeting code. Questions from the board? First motion of violation, 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 violation motion, please? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before August 24th. Well, I think that's when they had to have the permit and then have six months to do the revisions after that. 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 liens. May I have a second, please? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector Reese. Next case, 3.4 on our agenda, continued from April 22nd, 2026, case 87-26, fine respondents Gratis Filius Enterprises, LLC, at 1700 Gulf Bay Boulevard. In violation of code for unsafe billing, 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 Larson, you have the floor. Good afternoon, Code Board. My name is Inspector Larson. City of Clearwater. This is one we're going to revisit. If you remember, this is 1700 Gulf Bay coffee shop that was an abandoned construction site, property maintenance requirements. It was considered a nuisance, and the board gave them 60 days. If you remember, we were trying to give them six months, and their two lawyers stood here and, oh, we only need 60 days. Well, they're not finished, but they have made progress. So I don't know if you all remember where it is. Here it was when it was an abandoned construction site. That was a hell of dirt, various. And this is back in March. So here now in April, apparently when the new cops were working on this thing, it had been leaking. It wasn't built. The plans, they actually had done construction. You see the place, everything. The big job. This is the guy that told us he'd be done in 60 days, and that's what the board gave him. Windows torn out. All right, now this is yesterday. They put the building back together. You see the driveway. They put down, actually, if you look on the right side there, they've got drainage areas, and they have actually put sod in. I mean, they've really come a long way, just not in the time frame that the board gave them. So, like I say, construction site, permits had expired, but not in the game. Permits are good. The contractor has been changed. Construction needs to be completed. Like I say, the board's 60. I've gotten a bunch of something. It's a damn. We were asking originally for October 22nd, which is 6th. So being inspected, it is professional. They are passing. I think they've, like I say, they've... You're talking nine more days. Days plus. I think that's reasonable. Yeah. What is it? No, it's August, September. Yes, sir. They should be pretty wrapped up. Is that it? Yes, sir. Okay. Well, they didn't meet the 60 days that the board gave them. Yeah, but is it unsafe now or not? It's not completed. Is it unsafe? It's not incompleted. That was what we gave them. Would unsafe be something different other than... I mean, we're... I don't know that unsafe is germane. I'm just reading from what it says here. Violation of the code for unsafe building. Oh, it was unsafe. It was an abandoned construction site. So, at that point, it becomes a problem. Okay, but it's not abandoned now. So, what is the violation? They just didn't do it in the time that you gave them. They've gotten to this point. So, what I think now is... I mean, I'm not sure what... So, can we put in a motion? Well, but his... The city's request is requesting compliance by October, which is another three months. And that, based on the progress that we can see in the photos, you know, is that they're well on their way. And if they keep going the way they're going, they're going to be done well before then. And they, you know, they're very, very close if they've got concrete poured and putting down sod and everything. They're very close. And October is generous. And it kind of forces them back to the original timeline, and I agree with the inspector, in that they may not have realized what a task they were taking on if they, you know, were representing the owner and not the actual contractor. Well, I think unsafe would still be in place because it's still under construction. So, to me, it would be considered unsafe because it's not what it needs to be. Well, not every construction site is unsafe by virtue of being under construction. But it's unsafe because they did not meet the 60 days. The condition is not relevant. They didn't come in compliance to your order. Right, because they're not in compliance. So, it doesn't matter what it currently is. Until they're done, they're not in compliance unless you change your order. Right. Right, so what I'm saying is. Right, you can't extend it. Right. Right. But their condition doesn't have to be unsafe to still not be in compliance, is what I'm saying. I think we just need to put in a motion for extension. Wait a minute. Hold it. I've got to. Let's get to the question before we get to the motion. Mr. Salzman, with them not being in compliance, would there be any fines accruing, original fines, 150 a day? Have we hit that date? No. The 60 days haven't. No. This case was originally presented to the board in April. The board continued it, basically, after hearing it. You continued it to today, for action to happen today. So, there's no fining. No. There's no fining. All right. Thank you. And I think that's basically, can we go back to your request screen, in terms of what the city is asking? I think the city is asking for compliance by October. And if it doesn't meet compliance by October, that's when the fine starts. So, this is what they're asking for. Yeah. The 250 starts then. Right. I wasn't concerned about the previous. I think we gave them more time to finish. I don't think we made any motions regarding any fines. So, there have been no fines assessed to date. And the city is requesting compliance by October, which seems reasonable. Unless the board has other opinions. Are we just going to give an extension? Well, it's not really an extension. They're asking for a motion that they have to finish by October, or then the fines start. I understand. But they are really working to get it done. It's drastic. Oh, I agree. I go with board member Gerd. I think we just gave them a little bit more time with taking a really drastic action. They're really showing good faith, I think. I would say that an extension is implied in the motion in that we're not giving them 30 days. We're giving them 90 days. And that reeks of extension to me in terms of the way it's worded. So, I'm good with the city's recommendation unless somebody else has it. Is there a lot of activity and a lot of discussion going on in the community here up here? I think it has too much time. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Madam Secretary. All right. I'm sorry. Is there any other discussion from the board or questions? I think it's just too much time. I think 60 is more. But that's just my story. What the city is asking for. I'm inclined to just give it to them and let them finish. I mean, there's been a lot of work I know to clean that thing up. And they're making good progress. And I don't necessarily want to be a guy to penalize that or be, you know, penalize that. What do they need to do to be compliant? Say again? What do they need to do to be compliant? They need to finish their project and get a certificate of occupancy, I would assume. Final inspection. And then certificate of occupancy. Right. Well, you had no way of seeing inside how far along they've gone. I have been inside, not recently, but when they were tearing it all apart. But they're passing inspections. I have coworkers that have been doing, you know, electrical inspections, plumbing, various things, siding. So they are passing their inspections. I was just wondering how far along it is inside to warrant 90 days. That's why I'm asking. Mr. Gary? Yeah, Kevin Gary with the building department. Pardon me. I was part of the noise there in the back as we were talking with council as to where we are on this. So let me try and explain a little bit. The building and site were unsafe because it had a permit. And it got so far along in construction, as you see. Let's see. I don't know if I can find the pictures in on here. Back up in these days here, even before that, we were looking at this. This is when we brought it to you two months ago. This is the way it looked. So we declared it unsafe. We, at that point, were suggesting six months for completion. And with their help, they being the neighbor and the property owner of this property, they were both here, and they thought they could be done within 60 days, I believe. So the board, at that point, decided, well, let's just check on them in 60 days and see where they are. So this is really just kind of a stop along that way. It isn't like a new hearing. It's a continuation of that hearing two months ago with the progress that we're seeing that now looks like... Well, that's a good one, to see if they've made this good progress. But they are not done. It will be, but, you know, who can predict the future? So any questions on that? Does that make any sense at all to the y'all of the board? So the site was unsafe in the condition it was in before, but now they've gone ahead and they've done progress with their permits and produced the building that we're seeing in these pictures. And now, I guess, the question I'm trying to wrap my head around, and I'm sure the board is too, is is this truly an unsafe site at this point, or is this now just a construction site that is just going through the building permit process, where as long as they stay compliant with the timelines and the provisions of the Florida Building Code, everything is okay now. That's just what's going through my brain. That's a good question. Yes, yes. I mean, there is good progress. Have you spoken to the owner and kind of gotten engaged of when they feel it will be in completion? I spoke to a general contractor on site about a month ago, and he was complaining about access from Pizza Place. He claims he's going to be finished in a reasonable amount of time, but he didn't give me an exact date. The construction's not that way, which, as you know. And that was a month ago. Sir. And that was a month. Yes, sir. Asphalt down is still, since then, I basically. Is it still unsafe, though? Or is it just the act of building? They have to put a fence up around, which is great. Basically, the unsafe will abandon, specifically saying it's unsafe, but that's encompassed in abandoned construction. No, it's not in abandoned construction. It's time. You know, I have to make sure they finish. The track record of abandoning, we don't know if they're going to finish. I mean, we hope they are. It appears that way. Basically, it's kind of a progress report field level today. But isn't that governed by building construction permits? The Florida building definitely governs, like, construction sites and timelines for how long a permit should be approved and how long a construction site should be active. It covers all those things. I think you might be missing that it was abandoned for, like, two years. I hear that. I definitely hear that. My thought process is that I understand it was abandoned, and that's not a good thing. We certainly don't want to see that. However, that is no longer the case. And the unsafe portion of this building is no longer applicable because it's no longer really unsafe. So I'm just wondering at this point, you know, would it be better for staff just to let this go through the Florida building code process? And if they don't follow the process and their permit, I guess, expires, for lack of a better word, then at that case we would maybe take this one back. It just seems like there's nothing really wrong at this point. And I hate to say that we're having this conversation in public, but, I mean, I wasn't really aware of this case because it was continued since before I was doing this board. But just when I'm thinking through this logically, it's like, well, it just seems like it's a construction site now. And that would take us back to where we were three years ago that looked somewhat similar to this. And it was falling under then the time frame of the Florida building code, and all at once it stopped. And it sat there, and it sat there year after year, and the wood rotted away. It all had to be replaced. And so we would be back at that point. Yes, that could happen. But it is an active construction site at the moment. They have a permit. Yeah, so I think that giving them the original October date would be reasonable. It seems fair to me. I mean, is there any objection from the board on the October date? No. I just don't think that there's a violation that they need an extension for. I think we gave them an extension, and they have to bring it back to us because we gave them an extension, and they're not finished. An extension for what? They're not completed with their construction. That's governed by another body. That's not our place to govern construction. But we gave them 60 days to finish it. The completion of construction. We're just looking at is it safe or is it not safe? No. That's not the only thing we're looking at. What we're looking at is I think we had an original motion back in the day that they were in violation. We gave them – we offered them like six months to get the thing done, and they wanted less time than that. So we gave them 60 days, and now we're revisiting that and saying, okay, they're making good progress. The city's asking us to make a declaration of that. If they're not done in three months, then the fines will start accruing, and that sounds entirely reasonable to me. I agree. Let's just get an extension. Let's just get it. All right. So can we have your order request back up on the screen, Mr. Larson? And then I will request a motion. All right. May I have a first motion, please? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? No. Nay. I'd like to poll the board to make sure we have a quorum. I think you have five to two. Yeah. Okay. 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 October 22, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $250 per day per violation for each day each violation needs 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? Nay. Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector Larson. Thank you. Next on our agenda, number 3.5 is continued to August 26, number 3.6. Case 130-26, fine respondents Edward and Alana Papadami at 1316 Pierce Street in violation of code for residential grass parking and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Matt, is there anyone here to speak on this case? Sir, would you please come forward? Board, I'd like to say that the property has come into compliance. The city's just been requesting a declaration of violation. We just haven't ever spoken to them. Okay. So they showed up. Fair enough. I think since they're here, we at least, you know, owe them an opportunity to. Sir, would you give us your name and address for the record? My name is Edward Papadami. I'm sorry, can you say that again? Closer to the microphone. Edward Papadami. Edward. Okay. 1655 Sherwinway. I live in 1655. Can you please speak closer to the mic? I live in 1655 Sherwinway. Thank you, sir. You said that you were asking for a declaration of violation. Yes, sir. Okay. Sir, do you admit or deny the violation? Yes, sir. Do you admit or deny the violation? I admit they were parking over there, but I told them it many thousand times, so I think they're going to have to do it. They don't have to do this anymore. I'm sorry, sir, I'm going to ask you to come closer. I think they don't have to do this anymore because they're going to have to get out. Excuse me. He has some health issues. He has a parking zone. That's why he came here. I understand that. I just want to be able to understand what he's saying. I spoke to my tenants and they say they're not going to park there anymore. Okay. So, the question we have for you is do you admit to the violation or do you deny it? I don't deny it. I saw the parking there. Okay. But that's just a big deal to fix that one. Thank you. Sorry. Counsel, did we take that as an admission? He said he does not deny it. Did we really need that when there's a declaration? Well, if we're going to make a declaration of violation, I mean, you know, per our… I need to make a finding that he was in violation and he corrected it, so I would take it as your normal case. We don't have to present it. I didn't take that as an admission. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Tom, we appreciate it. Okay, thank you. If there's anything else to add, we'll call you back up. Thank you so much. Thank you, sir. Before Inspector Dixon starts, my understanding from what the owner of the property said is that it's unclear whether there was an actual admission. a violation or not, so I would like to give the inspector the opportunity to present whatever data he has, if he wishes. The violation's in compliance. Okay. The problem is, is that he said that there was a violation at some time, but it doesn't say when the time period was. So was it after the notice? If it wasn't after the notice, then you can't find a violation that was corrected. So we still need to hear when the violation occurred. Right. That's what I'm saying. So I would ask that if the inspector has the data and can present us the data so that we can actually make sense of it and understand and make a determination of a violation, then good. If not, then we'll have to see where we go from there. Over to you, Inspector. Okay. This is Vicki Suttis' case. I did update the slides, but, of course, I'm not Vicki. I'm Greg Dixon, co-compliance inspector of the city of Clearwater. This is case 130-26 for 1316 Pierce Street. It's not letting me take it to full screen. There's one violation here for residential grass parking. Notice the violation was sent in April with a compliance date of April 19th. The certified mail receipt was returned back to the office on April the 14th. The grass parking in March, grass parking, and it's on the right side of the picture. The picture of grass parking in the United States was made in the picture in July. Posting for the notice of hearing. This morning, I didn't see any grass that were in the driveway. Compliance could be met for grass parking by parking only one vehicle on the grass parallel and adjacent to the driveway. So, we are requesting a declaration of violation. Okay. In our case, that would be just the first motion, and you're not asking for any fines or anything else? No, sir. That would be one of our other motions other than our standards. Okay. So, that works. All right. You want to declare it. So, does the board have any questions of the inspector to proceed? No. All righty. Do we want to speak any further with the – I think we've gotten what we need from the property owner, unless somebody else wants to – has questions for you? I do not. All right. I think we're ready for a declaration of violation. Mr. Chairman, I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day. The violation continues to exist. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Sir, thank you for coming to speak today. Thank you. We have issued that there was a declaration of violation and that there is no fine imposed. But you do have rules that govern any future parking. Thank you, sir. All right. Moving on. Agenda item 3.7 has been withdrawn. Agenda item 3.8, case 132-26, fine respondents Chandra Ramanarian at 1475 Park Street in violation of the code for exterior surfaces. And issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector, you have the floor. Afternoon, board. Greg Bigson, co-compliance inspector. This is case 132-26 for 1475 Park Street. There's one violation at the property for exterior surfaces. Notice the violation was sent out in February. There's a compliance date in March. The green card was received back in the office. This is property. It's a duplex. It's just got some exterior surface issues. There's a big hole in May. Here it is this morning. It's basically in the same condition as it was when it was cited. Compliance can be met by replacing any defective structural and decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, faded, peeling paint, and rotten wood. The city would like to request compliance on or before 8-2026 or $150 per day per violation. Thank you. Board? Have you spoken to the... No, the green card was returned, but nobody's reached out to us. And you have a thing posted? I just didn't think... They signed for the mail. Oh, okay. They got the receipt. You did post the property, I presume? No, because the mail that we sent certified was signed for. Oh, good. Certified. All right. Any other questions? You may have a first declaration, please. I must find a respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? He carries. I have a second motion, please. I move to enter an order requiring a respondent to correct the violation on or before August 22, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day. Each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Thank you. Item 3.9 on our agenda is being continued to August. Item 3.10, case 134-26. Fine respondents. Deborah Hicks at 1308 Roosevelt Avenue in violation of code for exterior surfaces and community garden maintenance. 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 Dixon, you have the floor. Inspector Dixon, code compliance inspector for the city of Clearwater. This is case 134-26 for 1308 Roosevelt Avenue. There are two violations on the property. One for code section 3-2602 for operational requirements for community gardens. And code section 3-1502B for exterior surfaces. They have come into compliance for the operational requirements for the community garden. So I'll just be asking for a declaration of violation for that. I don't know if you want to knock that out at the beginning or wait until the end. I mean, if they're in compliance on that, we could go ahead and address that separately and ask for a declaration of violation. And that was for which? For community gardens. Operational requirements for community gardens. Okay. Somebody give me a... A declaration of violation? Yes, please. I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit. In this case, the violation was corrected prior to today's hearing. And to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day. The violation continues to exist. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Inspector? All right. The violation for the exterior surface still exists. Notice went out in April with a compliance date in May. And the certified mail receipt was received back in May. This is the community garden that I brought last month that had some trash and debris. The grounds are cleaned up. It's organized. But this shed still needs some attention. So that's what we're talking about here. I just need the front of that shed to match the other three sides. This is what looked like the day that we've decided. Here it is today. The sun was shining in my eye here, but it's still in the same condition. The other three sides are incomplete. So compliance can be met for the exterior surfaces by finishing the front side of the shed. Attach panels to make the front look uniform with the rest of the shed and apply paint slides not catching up. But I'd like compliance on or before September 1st, 2026, or impose a fine of $150 a day. How much on the first? September 1st? September 1st. September 1st, yes. Oh, there we go. All right, good. It's always a little bit easier memory-wise with everything going on to be able to see it and read it if need be and see them out. Thank you. The board have any questions? I do. Okay. I just noticed there's a lot of debris around that building. I thought that was part of it. There's a couple things leaned up against it, but it's not near what it was before. Sure. We consider it in compliance. Okay. Any other questions? First motion, please. I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Do you have a second? 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 September 1st 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 foreclosure, collect, or settle such lien. We have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Thank you, Board. Item 3.11 on our agenda has been withdrawn. Item 3.12, Case 136-26. Fine respondents. Forgive my pronunciations here if they're not good. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? No? Well, this one will actually be a declaration of violation. They did come into compliance for the exterior storage, and they've been in compliance since about the 13th, but I just want that declaration to make. Very good. Thank you. If there are no questions from the board, then I'll entertain a motion. I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day and the violation continues to exist. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Inspector Kasman? Good afternoon, Board. Daniel Kasman, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater. I don't know if you – I'm sorry. Do you need to declare this one before I jump on it? Yeah, let me add it to the record. Jumped ahead of you. Next on our agenda is Item 3.13, Case 137-26, Fine Respondent, South Florida Homeowner Solutions, LLC, at 2048 Loma Linda Way South. In violation of code for exterior surfaces, an issue in order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Mr. Kasman, it's all yours. Daniel Kasman, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is case number 137-26 for 2048 Loma Linda Way South. There's one violation here for Code Section 3-1502B for exterior surfaces. These are the dates the notice of violation went out with the compliance date. There was also an affidavit of posting and a notice appearing for today's hearing. This is 2048 Loma Linda Way South. This is in the Valencia Park neighborhood if you've ever been up that way. I've gotten some complaints at the property, but then I also had noticed there were some issues with the exterior of the home itself. As you can see up top, there's some rotting fascia boards, but also some chipped and peeling paint on the walls, but the greenery in the way. This is right below the window in the front of the home. Back, after initially looking at it, had he sent a courtesy letter, but there were still issues at the home. The same things had not been addressed. There's a better look at that wall down below. This was the date of my posting after the notice of violation was sent out, and I did not get the green card back. Still in the same state. And then this was the notice of hearing for today's hearing. State, this was today, this morning. Let me know if you want me to go back to anything. It's again, the same wall. If you've noticed the left, that teal wall is chipping. The pillars up front still have the same issues. The top are still rotten. Appliance may be met for exterior surfaces. You're cleaning the appliance on before a second. Six or $50 per day provided a violation. Questions from the board? Just have you talked to them? Um, I have talked to them. Uh, I think there's some issues happening, possibly with foreclosure. I don't know if they're willing or able to do theirs, so, but I had to go forward with the cases. So in four months, when you first went out there, took the first picture to nothing. There was some, there was another violation for exterior storage, which the owner did take care of, but I don't know if they were, like I said, willing or able to, with the other thing. Questions for your 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 declaration for, second motion, please. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before August 22, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Next on our agenda is item 3.14. It's been withdrawn. Number 3.15 has also been withdrawn. Number 3.16 has been withdrawn. Agenda item 3.17, case 141-26, fine respondents, FTMC LLC at 1627 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, in violation of code for signage without permits, and issue an order with a compliance deadline, and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Dr. Berghardt, you have the floor. Good afternoon, Board. Stephen Berghardt, sign inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is case 141-26 for 1627 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. There's one violation regarding code section 4-1002, signage without permits. Signage has been located, placed, directed, constructed, altered, or extended without a permit. I mailed, noticed a violation, certified mail. The certified mail came back unsigned, original January 14th, 26th. I posted the property on April 26th, and compliance date was May 21st. So the sign we're talking about is this one. And the complaint original was about multiple signage, including on the side of it. That's all been, this is a sign that's in particular a film that's applied to the surface directly. It still requires a permit, so the sign appears to be it. And I spoke with a property owner, not with a property owner, with a business owner, I'm sorry, already in October 25th. And he mentioned that he wants to install a mall sign there. And then it went forth, so I said he either should get a permit, a needed sign, or a permit for a wall sign. But again, I spoke with him on several occasions. In March 26th, he said that he has a sign in production that's in a room facility. And again, I spoke with him, nothing being done. And that's July 20th, so the sign is still there. There are no permit on files, no applications for any, for neither for the sign he plans to install nor for the painted sign. Compliance for the unpermitted sign can be met by removing the sign or obtaining a permit. Requesting compliance on or before August 22nd, 26th, the violation continues to exist. Impose a fine of $150 per day. I have one. Can you make it clear for me what you said about Romania, a sign being made in Romania? Yeah, I mean, he wants to install an illuminated wall sign, a professional-made sign. And he said he has it in production in Romania. I thought I heard you right. That's what he told me. But he still needs to apply for a permit first because I told him that sign he has in production may not even be allowed to install. So that's still in question. And I haven't seen any plans or anything of that. Yeah, I was just wondering if he's heard of we do make signs here. Right. Okay. In Florida. Okay. I don't know how long the shipping takes, but I can't imagine that the case is open for a long time now. I have a question. Did he mention he was able to produce a contract or something that says that there is a sign being made in Romania? No. No. Inspector Burkhart, I wouldn't expect you to speak for the building department, but I would imagine, based on our experience, the proper sequence would be to submit for a permit and submit whatever sign he's going to put up there to make sure it's approved before he buys it and installs it so that it meets all the Florida building codes, ring codes, et cetera, et cetera. Would you have any disagreement with that? No, I agree. I explained everything to him. I said he needs to get a contractor, even if it's – I mean, he can have it in production, but the installation needs to be done by a licensed contractor. So they need to submit it. If they get it right, it may. And I believe the building code also would – I'm sorry. I stepped on your toes there. No, it's all right. I would imagine that the building department might have something to say about what's – or the Florida building code might dictate what is acceptable in terms of size and design and everything else. So, okay. All right. Any other questions from the board? 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 August 22nd 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. 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 case, item agenda 3.18, case 142-26, fine respondents MCT, 2022-06, LLC, Triple Key, LLC at 810 South Missouri Avenue, in violation of code for signs attached to trees, temporary signs in issue order of the compliance deadline, and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Sir, please come forward and give us your name. I'm sure he was. I'm not sure he was here to be sworn in. Were you sworn in, sir? Yes. When I stood up. In the beginning, when everybody stood up. Okay. Good. Sorry. Thank you. You're good. Thanks. Always nice to make sure. Working out for you. I'm Jason Martin. That's my business, 810 South Missouri, but my home is 1621 Golf Boulevard. So, I don't know which other issue with me. And you are the, that is your business that's there? Correct. Business was actually started by a friend of mine, Noah Curry. Okay. And I'm going to, I don't want to necessarily cut you off too quickly, but our process here is that we want to know who you are. Oh. And then we're going to hear from the inspector and then, what is your relation to the property? You're simply, are you the owner? I'm the owner of the business leasing the building. Okay. But you're not the owner of the property? No. Okay. So, I'm going to ask counsel if a tenant of a property is authorized to speak with us or testify in a, or. Well, the only concern is, is that any violation you find is against the property. So. Precisely. Right. So, do you have the authority to act on behalf of the owner? I do not, because I'm just a lease of the property. Okay. But I have information that I don't know if it's even going to be a violation, because, like I said, the signs have been removed. I know who put them up. They've been taken down. The business has changed the maintenance. Can you step a little bit closer? Yeah. I can't hear you. So, there's a whole bunch of, like, business was started under a different business. I have it now. It's under a different business. I'm the leasee. The signs that were there are no longer there. So, like, that's why I'm coming here. Okay. Are they in compliance? No. All right. If there's no objection, I'd like to go ahead and hear from the inspector. And since this gentleman is here, I'd like to afford him a bit of time to address the issues for our clarification. But we know at the end of the day, the violations are against the property, not the tenant or that sort of thing. Inspector Berger. Should we have to amend over his eye? He can't amend over his eye. He doesn't own the property. He doesn't represent the property owner. Okay. Gotcha. Stephen Berger, sign inspector for the city of Clearwater. This is case 142-26 for 810 South Missouri Avenue. There's one violation regarding Code Section 3-1806A, temporary sign criteria and limitations. The notice of violation was mailed March 10th of 26th. Certified mail was not signed. That's why I posted the property on April 7th, 26th, compliance date, April 17th. There are multiple temporary banner signs installed at the property. One here at the trees. The picture is from February of 26th. There was a violation in itself. Any signs attached to vegetation, trees. A banner sign installed at the building. Actually, three banner signs. As you see, one's already falling down here. There's a different one on the side, and there's one on the top. We only allow one banner sign per parcel for up to 30 days per calendar year. So it's just a temporary sign solution. It should be there before a business installs a permanent sign, for example. A temporary solution is not a permanent. That picture is taken. Banner is already gone. If it fell down, the other is half done. There's still one banner installed. Little banners. It's back. Yeah. It's probably falling down. I don't know. But again, it's still not in compliance as of today, actually, or today. And there's still... So just for clarification, that's where Marco's Pizza used to be, right? I beg your pardon? Yes. Yes. There was a previous Marco's Pizza, right? It's unfortunate they're not there anymore. Compliance can be met by removal banners. Resting compliance on or before August 22nd, 26th. Information continues to exist. And, Inspector, the banner signs, I didn't know. They're only good for 30 days. They're only good for 30 days. And one is the maximum per parcel that can be used. And just one. Okay. So it's too many. And too long. So it's not... Some business won't use them instead of installing a permanent sign. But it's not attractive. And as you see, it's not a good solution because they fall down. Have you spoken with the owner about the issues? Again, I never had any contact with the owner. It was only through the posting. I didn't sign a mail. Didn't it? No, not the first time. And any time I came out, posted, it was closed a bit. And that first... On your first picture, I couldn't hardly see. It's tied between two trees, two palm trees? Okay. I think it's meanwhile, it fall down. It's just hanging on one tree. It's not real. I asked for a declaration of violation. I think we could go ahead and do that. But I would like to hear from the tenant if there's no objection. It might help give a little more understanding regardless of how... The fact that we have a motion to do and it's against the owner and not the tenant. I would like to see what data he has to offer if there's no objection. Yeah, I'd like to hear. Sir, would you come for us and just share with us briefly what you know? So, like I was saying earlier, Noah Curry is a friend of mine. And he is the one that started the business back in October. He's the one that put the temporary signs up. He, since October, he owns a business and also a pizza place in Knoxville, Tennessee. I've known him from Knoxville, Tennessee. I also own Max Results Physical Therapy. So, him being my friend, he was like, hey, do you want to just take this business over? He got engaged. His fiancée doesn't want him traveling as much as it was before. So, I said, sure, I'll take the business over. So, as of January 1, I took the business over. As far as today, there are no signs on the vegetation. There is a sign in that corner lot, but that's the 7-Eleven sign. It's not a pizza sign, so it actually has 7-Elevens. That's not our sign. We do only have the one sign, which is temporary, because we're waiting on the sign company's sign code. And then we're supposed to get the permitting and get us a backlit LED sign. So, we're using it as a temporary sign. But the other ones have been taken down, so there is no other signs there. The only one we have right now is the one that's on top. The gentleman that you referenced. Noah Curry. Right. Is he the owner of the building, or was he just the business owner? No, he was the leasee of the LLC before I took it over, and now it's my LLC. Okay. Thank you very much. Do you understand what the inspector's describing in terms of what the code is? Yes, I do. And so, that's what I would say. As of right now, the only sign we have left is the one that's up top. And we're using that until we get the backlit LED sign put in place. So, I understand I would like to actually have a little bit longer, because it's taking a little bit of those sign companies, too. Apparently, get permitting and design it and put it up. Understood. Kind of a payment. I have been in contact with the owner in regards to getting a permit for that to install that sign once it's completed. For the sign? I have been in contact with the landlord, because he had to approve the new logo, because our logo has changed. And he has approved the logo for us to get the sign. I didn't actually tell him that I actually got this paper, because we thought it was us. Gotcha. Yeah, we did. We appreciate you coming today, and unfortunately, you have a little of no standing in terms of what we do, because all of our dealings are tied to the specific property and not whoever the tenant may be. But we appreciate you coming in and giving us what data you could. Can I just answer the quick question? Certainly. Do you have the paperwork showing the sign has been ordered and it's in process? I have an email from Fast Signs, which is actually literally like a block over from us, right? So we do have an email from them saying that they're giving us, trying to get permitting. Okay. And do they have a timeline on that? We have contacted three sign companies. They all have told us the same thing. Permitting is taking forever. And then they won't give us the cost of the sign until they actually know what size sign it can be up there. So we're kind of in this like holding pattern until the sign company is kind of good. I would suggest you get his card and send him any correspondence you get from him. Absolutely. We will. I have a back to the Inspector Burkhardt. Thank you, sir, for coming. We appreciate it. Well, I have a question, but never mind. Never mind. If you have a question. Go ahead. I was just, basically she asked what I was going to ask. You have no idea who's even applied for a permit for a permit. I've been told that Fast Signs has applied, and I also have been. Yeah, but when? I'm trying to find out. Oh, when. We took it over in January, and I believe it had been like end of February, 1st of March, that we reached out to them. They actually came down for lunch. You need to try it. It's better than my clothes. So, four months has gone by now. Four months. No word on a permit. And that falls on me. I'm a physical therapist. I work Monday through Friday. I also own Shoreline Docks. I build docks and marinas. I also own 4th Airs Reclinics in Knoxville. I also own K9 Defense System in Oak Ridge. But that has nothing to do with the permit here. Yeah, but it's on my fault that if it hasn't been followed up on, I'm like, when? That's definitely on me. I have let that go through. That's mine. Thank you. Thank you for the question, because it answered my question about the timeline on that. I appreciate that. Inspector, I got my question answered by Mr. Engel's question. Any other questions from the board? Any – because of the time in this thing, it would seem that the city's request appears reasonable to me, but I will defer to the board on the subject of, you know, there's little or no data in terms of when he's going to actually be able to get a permanent sign. And with the – I can appreciate the fact that the city is asking for compliance about a month from now or a month from today. The only concern I might have about any of it is that the gentleman has a new business, and he's taking responsibility to the fact that he doesn't have a sign. And just thinking out loud and thinking ahead, one month, if he doesn't have a sign manufactured, permitted, manufactured, and installed a month from today, then he has no signage for his business. Is that something the board wants to consider, or do we simply declare a violation and move on? Can I just ask a quick question? Have you checked Accelera to find out if there's a permit for his sign? Yeah, I checked. There's no application for it. Okay. There's not. Well, sir, come back up. I mean, if there's conflicting data, we'd like to have the most accurate. I will clear that up for us. Do I have to say again? Clear it up. Clear it up. I don't know. I will – as soon as I leave here, I will be on the phone with fast signs. I might even drive over there and be like, hey, what's going on in this process? Again, my fault. I'm a busy – Understood. It would be incumbent upon the sign people to submit the permit through the Acela permit portal. And if they had done that, then I would imagine that Inspector Burkhart would be able to see that sign application there. That's fairly cut and dry. And if I can get a hold of that paperwork when I go over there, I'll stop by there. And if I do, I'll email it to you. And if they haven't started it, I will shoot you an email saying, hey, they haven't started it yet. But I keep you guys – That would explain the four months. If it had passed, it had to have been manipulated for it. Yeah, absolutely, yes. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thanks for coming. And like that, all the signs are down now except for the one sign that's in the temporary, which is at the top. And so – And that one at the top is not in compliance with the code, right? Right. Yeah. Well, not partially because it's a long time, but not against hitting what's – But, I mean, all he's got to do to comply is take down that sign, right? Yeah, but then he has no signage for his business. Yeah. Correct. That was – Yeah. I see. We want to – Are you able to extend another 30 days for that sign, banner? So we can – Also, I just want to – If it's not us, they have their own system in the system yet. I got you. And the permit, so I can't say if under this – And now I have information now with me. Great. Okay. I think it's important that you communicate that to the landlord as well. Well, I will definitely let the landlord know that. So I'll forward that to you. And, Inspector, you say that it might not even be in the system yet. Do you think that August 22nd would be enough time for a permit to be obtained, or should we consider longer? And how long is the approval process for a sign typically? Do we have any information on that? No, I can't tell. It depends upon what our blood is. Does anybody be planning here? That's also the production of the sign when it's in L.A. That's a big – To September. And, again, I guess I need to check that because I was very specific on the signs that I like for my – I like it in L.A. So it – Like all my clinics have the – So all the works. Visible signs. So I'm very specific on what I get. I just don't – Well, it has to be approved. Whatever you come up with still has to be approved. Correct. And that's why I thought because I was so specific and anal. The most important thing is that what's out there now comes down by a certain day. It's certainly what ends up getting approved. Correct. Yeah. It's more – I think it's more of a consideration that the board may or may not be willing to offer, you know, as a courtesy to this gentleman and his business more than anything else. It really – beyond that, as far as our motions and ruling, really has nothing to do with us. So you can gamble on, like, a crazy sign with all kinds of cool stuff on it, or you could do something more fair – get it. Well, if you come and try my pizza, I'll do that. I'll take rhymes now. Don't take that to rhyme. I'm joking. I would point out as well that the inspector has some latitude if he knows that there's a sign-in permitting and it's being manufactured and scheduled for install or something. I mean, during that process, the inspector has some latitude about when he brings this back to us for notice for violations. Does that mean that we have to entertain the temporary sign? It's out of compliance. No. It's – I mean, we go ahead and make our motions. I'm just saying in terms of a deadline here, whatever deadline we set. Okay. So can I put in a motion to extend to September 22nd? You could put in a motion for whatever date you want it. Okay. We're just going to vote on it. So the temp sign can stay up there even if we give them extra time? Well – That's my point. They're requesting compliance on or before whatever date we give them. So he – Okay. He's – that sign's got to come down by whatever date we set. So if we give it until September, he still has a banner. It gets signed. Effectively, he's allowed to have a banner sign up before – and not improve fines until the date we specify. Am I correct, counsel? Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. Can I put in a motion? Any other discussion on this one? All right. Rock and roll. I'd like to put in a motion to extend the temporary sign. Wait a minute. What we're doing is, number one, we're doing a first motion of violation. And then when we do our second motion, we will use that particular date that you want to use. So we'll do a standard first motion. Okay. I want a first motion. 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? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation on or before September 22, 2026. If the respondent does not comply, by that date, the board may order a fine of, is it 150 or 250? 150. 150. Per day, per violation for each day, each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid for three months, after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Thank you. Thank you, sir, for coming to speak with us. Thank you, sir. Enjoy your pizza. All right. Agenda item 3.19 has been continued to August. Agenda item 3.20, case 144-26, fine respondents Shane and Sarah Scott at 3136 San Pedro Street, in violation of code for abandoned building and issuing an 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 and give us your name? An address in relation to the property? Good day, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Shane Scott. I own 3136 San Pedro Street. Excellent. So we're going to – do you admit or deny the violation? I admit violation. I'm sorry, Chair. Were you sworn in? No, I was not here. All right. Let's do that. Yes. Thank you. And then I'll ask you. If you could just raise your hand. Do you swear to our firm to tell the truth throughout your entire testimony? Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. Then I need to ask you again now that you're sworn in. Do you admit or deny the violation? I admit the violation. Excellent, sir. We're going to hear from the inspector, then we'll have you back up to talk with us. Inspector? That's the first time I've met him. We've been talking on the phone for quite a while. Kevin Maddox, Code Enforcement Inspector for case number 144-26, address of 3136 San Pedro Street. One violation of abandoned building under 3-1503B2. Notice of violation was sent and posted on 518 of this year. Compliance date by 6-4 of this year. I'll explain in the next slide where that timeline comes through. No green card was received and the property was posted. So of last year, September, a courtesy letter was sent. Notice of violation was sent the first time on July of last year. And then from last year to the present, many months of monitoring, financial setbacks, contractor issues were communicated. And then the second notice of violation was created and posted on May of 26. And then as of today, no improvement or demolition of the property has occurred. So this is the property as of 7-10 of 2025. There's no roof on it. And it's pretty much gutted on the inside. This is where it was posted the second time because we didn't receive back a green card acknowledging. 518, this is still the condition of the property with no roof on it. If you look real close here, you can see it's just bare walls. And this is as of a couple days ago. It's still in those pictures. There was in the interim, there was things that were going on where contractors were starting projects in the back. There was forms put up. There was concrete that was going to be put down. There was communication from was explaining what he was going through during this whole time. And finally, it just came to a compliance committee meant for this violation of abandoned building by bringing the property into compliance with current property maintenance ordinances and have current utilities turned on. Can we go back to that previous screen and interrupt you? But you said and or net reads or. And I want to make sure we're understanding what it is we're trying to meet. Oh, I see. Ordinances and have or demolished. Okay. Utilities turned on. I got you. Okay, thank you. It's just part of the code for a abandoned building. Right. So we're requesting compliance on or before August 26th of 2026 or a fine of $150 per day. I'm sure the owner will have some things to tell you. Okay. Since we, thank you, do we have any questions of the inspector at the moment? I do. Okay. Is there, was there permits for this? And if it's a second violation, couldn't you guys have gone in and taken it down or come here to ask us to allow you to do it? Do you have to do that after a second violation? I'm sorry. Your first question? Is there, were there original permits? Like, I don't understand what happened. Like, was the roof taken off in a storm? Is it a new build? Is it like. There were permits. As I recall, there was permits that had expired and continued. It just continued to be an abandoned building. So, but it's a new build or it's an extension onto a house or how did it, like, I don't understand. I don't know. Yeah. It's, before we get too far off into exactly what's occurring, I'd like to go ahead and do the first violation and then let's gather data and figure out what we're going to do on the second part of this. If that's okay. All right. You may 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? All right. So, there's a question about whether or not it was just an existing building or there was something else going on with it. So, if. I think the owner might be able to explain it better. Sure. Sure. I purchased the building on December 8th of 2023. It is two blocks from my parents and we were planning to expand the building. It was originally 1185. We've drawn it up to be 2493 in square footage. And so, we were actually going to lift it as well. Hence the reason we took off the roof. The garage is still there. So, our three walls, the slab would be extended monolithic pour. My dad's an architect and so that's what we do. And, um, extending the home to be our permanent home and to be, again, two blocks from my parents. So, we were humming and then in February of 2024, I, um, I lost my job. We had just made an investment of about $50,000 liquid to get things in place to go. Conversations with the contractor found out that portrayed himself to be. And so, I'm still out that 50 and I'm someone that sourced the rent. Because of the state of the building, construction loan or two or three loans. So, exploring hard money situations, right now, we have three proposals out. Complete the building. So, I got to the point that I will probably have to sell it once I'm done constructing it. Because I will know about $700. The CMA shows that we'll have $130. Homes are pending at $20 a square foot for our build. And so, um, we're just trying to find funding. So, with those details, thank you for providing them. Sure. It's not feasible for you to get this into compliance within a four-hour? No, we can tear it down and it will be a ground of construction. That is what we're exploring. Okay. If you pursue demolition, do you have a, have you explored that enough to have a reasonable prediction of how long that would take? That can definitely be done by August 26th. That's a month? Yes, whatever the date was that resided before. Yeah. Have you spoken with the building department about what's required in order to demolish? I have not spoken to them. We've gotten several quotes about demolishing. They said that they would get the permitting as part of the payment for demolishing the building. Gas has to be locked. So there's water tagged in different locations. And then we would go down to slab. That is a question I do have. What would be your point of sense? Do we have to remove slab as well? That would be a question for the building department. You can talk with your code inspector and he can either assist you with that or you can talk to the, you know, perhaps talk to the building department directly in terms of what those requirements are. The reason I ask that question is I question a 30, basically a 34-day timeline for compliance with demolition. Inspector, do you care to offer anything on that? If moving forward is going to be a demolition, I have no problem with following and monitoring it to inclusion as long as it's started right away. Are we proposing to extend the date or? I don't want to be in the position of testifying, but if somebody else wants to answer questions or even query the building department on what a reasonable amount of time would be for that, then I would be happy to entertain something that's realistic. I have an expert coming up. It's what I was looking for. Your wish is your command. Garrett's coming. Clear it up. Hi, Kevin Gary with the building department again. So a demo permit, what you need to do is contact the county air quality people and see what they're going to want for asbestos. They'll want to do an asbestos survey and see if there's anything that you need to do on that. Yeah. And then do a cut and cap for your water and sewer and then apply through our office for the demo permit, which is basically if you've got those two things done, the permits just issued. So it's a quick turnaround time with those other things with the county and utility. I have a question for you. How long was, how long approximately would that take? Would it be 30 days? It just depends on when he processes. The asbestos survey would probably take the longest because he'll need to contact a, well, first contact their air quality. And then if they say, yeah, you need to do a survey, then you've got to get a company that will go out and they'll do samples. They'll test the samples. That will take a couple of days turnaround time, and then they'll give a report back to the owner, and then he gives that to the county, and then they'll determine if it's a wet demo or if there's nothing to worry about or how they need to address the asbestos that may or may not be in the building. So, you know, you've got to allow probably a couple of weeks at least just for that. I have a question. Is there something else? Yeah. Let me then go on to the cut and cap. That would be hiring a plumber. And so when the plumber can get out to the property, you know, that's kind of up to the plumber, whatever his schedule is. And then that work can be done within a day, get an inspection the next business day, and that would be complete. Based on your experience, is 34 days a reasonable or a typical time for something like this to occur? In your expectation, do they typically take longer? If everything went perfectly, you could do it in 34 days. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Based on the knowledge at hand, I would suggest, you know, we set this out in like 60 days. It would seem fair. It's enough to motivate, move things along, and bring the case along based on that. I would also agree to that. Thank you. Great. Because I've been working out on the Clearwater Beach area. Many of them struggle to continue to get this done in that kind of a reasonable time. And then, again, I can also monitor this at that point to see where it is, as long as it's started right away. Yeah. I have a question for Mr. Scott. Yes, sir. I'm sorry to hear about your misfortune getting your home built, number one. I really am. I feel for you. Do you think that 60 days would be enough if you're going to have to pursue a tear down? Yeah. That's interesting to me because the close I got, they said they could do it in a week. Yeah, but at a perfect point. I mean, look, because the other part is I didn't know about these things. That's what I'm saying. That can take time. I suppose if they believe it can be done in 60. We're ready to. Any other questions? I believe we did a first declaration. Can we do a second that sets us 60 days out? And what would that date be, Madam Secretary? That would be September 26th. Okay. Good. All right. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before September 26th 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, collect, or settle such lien. Mayor, I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? I'm curious. Quick question. Once it's leveled, I stay. That's your friend right there. There's your answer right there. Right there. That's your answer. Thank you. Best of luck, Mr. Scott. Thank you for coming to me, Mr. Scott. Appreciate it. Good luck to you. All right. Moving on. Agenda item 3.21 has been continued to August 26th. Agenda item 3.22, case 147-26, find respondents A5Js, LLC at 2620 Drew. In violation of code for permits, an issue of order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Inspector Reese, you're back. Good afternoon again, board. And I'm going to interrupt you a moment. Yes. Is there anybody here to speak on this case? Inspector Reese, you have the floor. Okay, it was Inspector Catherine Reese with Clearwater. Case number is 147-26 for 2620 Drew Street. You have one violation here for permits required, Section 4-203A1. Specifically, a permanent sign installed on the structure. Had multiple notice of violations. First one began August 21st of 2025. The last one was sent December 1st of 2025. Multiple compliance dates were also given. I've had two certified mails out of the three notices that were sent. August 26th of 2025 and September 22nd of 2025. This is going to be just east of US-19, north of Drew Street. It's the corner commercial lot there. And this is the sign that is in violation. I do have another angle that you'll see better in here shortly. It appears to say the Cut Lounge. And this was the updated photo. I just kept checking because they do have an option to take it down. So each time before I sent the notice of violation, I ensured that the sign was still up. And as of today, the sign is still there. What does the sign say? The Cut Lounge. The Cut Lounge. I believe it's a barber shop that is there. I have had communication with the property owner. The first time being September 24th of 2025. I explained to him that he thought it was already permitted. That was a different business. So I did let him know each time a sign comes down, even if it was the same sign, it would need to be re-permitted again. Because it needs to ensure that it's safe. He did speak with his tenants way back at the temporary office on State Road 580. They came in. The signs contracted that they used. They explained it seemed to be very confused. Fortunately, I tried very hard to work with them because of the situation with that contractor. But I have gotten no compliance and no more communication on them. So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit with inspections. Or they can remove the sign as well. So requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on, excuse that date, it's August 24th, 2026. 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. Any questions? Move to fine 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 violation of honor before August 22nd, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation. For each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Item 3.23 on our agenda is continued to September. Item 3.24 is continued to August. Item 3.25, Case 150-26, fine respondents Katina A. Paduzzi at 2054 Rainbow Drive in violation of code for permits. Initiant order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Right. Yes, ma'am. Would you come forward and give us your name and address in relation to the property, please? My name is Katina Paduzzi. I'm the owner. Okay. Thank you. Do you admit or deny the violation? Admit. Thank you very much. Can I go ahead and get a first motion, please? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in this affidavit in this case. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you. We're going to go ahead and hear from the inspector, and then we'll have you back up to give us more data. All right. Inspector Reese, you have the floor. Hello again, Code Board. This is for 2054 Rainbow Drive. I'm Inspector Catherine Reese with the City of Clearwater. Case number 150-26. This is for one violation. Permits required section 4-203A1, specifically for the installation of the wooden fence on the property. We had multiple notice of violations. First one was October 14th, 2025. The final one on February 27th of 2026, certified mail had been signed for all three notice of violations. This is just north of Rainbow Drive, I believe, and east of Mercury. And this is the fence that was installed without a permit. And that was the initial inspection photo, October 14th, 2025. And this is as of today. It is still there without a permit. So the permit, they did come in and try to apply for the permit. It is in revisions needed for multiple departments. I really can't speak on that too much. You know, they need to come in to meet those revisions so that way they can get an issued permit. That's the only way to come. So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit with inspections or remove the fence and submit a void letter for the permit, BC 2025-100634. Request in compliance by obtaining a permit on or before August 24th, 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. Yes, Inspector Reese, do you have knowledge of when those revisions are to be expired? Well, they won't ever expire, those revisions. Eventually the permit will go stale and it will get voided out because it's not really an issued permit and it's not moving. So then we'd be back to square one with, you know, her still being in violation. So it is, in fact, in violation. And how long would the permit stale? It depends. It's like something that people manually go ahead and that it's not really going anywhere. I don't know if the system automatically voids it after so long. Okay. When was the permit application submitted? It was applied for October 21st of 2025. And as you can see, revisions have been needed since then. There hasn't been traction on any of those revisions. Okay, so basically a permit was, was this permit, you know, was this done before or after the fence was installed? Is this an after-the-fact? It is an after-the-fact. Okay. So the fence was installed and then they found out they needed a permit, so they applied for a permit. But it needs revisions and nothing's occurred since the permit application. In terms of the system or any changes or updates or amendments or anything else? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. The revision, I do believe I printed out the conditions. I could put them. It's very, very small print, but. It always is. So there you can see engineering review, paying the fines, getting the CO condition and planning review. None of that has been met. So that lets me know that nothing has really been submitted in the permit for it to move along any further. So the next permit hasn't been issued. It's in revisions needed, right? It's essentially just an applied permit with no movement. Exactly. So there is no permit. Correct. Just an application. Yes. Thank you. So I see the second item, paid fees. I'm just taking a note because I know how that process works. And if they submit and they haven't paid the initial fees, it's going to sit there until those do. So at any rate, all right, does anybody else have questions for the inspector? Okay, let's hear from him. What would you like to tell us about all of this? Well, I usually don't take care of this. My husband passed away recently, and so this is kind of dropped on my plate. My son thought or I told him that the permitting was in place or in process, so he thought that meant to go ahead and build the fence. So that was the first miscommunication. So then that's when I did the permitting or the application. I do have a reference here in May that they received that, or the variances that need to be fixed, at least the application for that, reference number of Z0. So I was waiting for that. That's why this came to me as a surprise. They had to wait for that to happen. So there was an e-mail mix-up as well. I e-mailed it from Hotmail to extensions until March 2nd to do the variance request. But then I rarely ever fix that and look at that e-mail on the application to e-mail me back on my Gmail account. So I didn't check that until May, and then that's when it was definitely submitted back in the proper way was made that they should have the information. And like I said, I have a reference number for this, for the variances for the application. So I assumed we were in process and at work, and then I got this letter saying I had to do. All right. So your intentions are basically how to sort it out. Absolutely, to get the variance that we need to have the fence where it's at and to continue with the fence once it's approved. What do you know about that in terms of what kind of variance are you looking for? Is it outside the property line or past the house, or what kind of variance are you seeking? There was, so in the back of the house, there was an add-on in the original house, and they're saying that that was the setback. But there's three or four houses in the neighborhood, the same fence, and they have the same setback. So we ordered the boat to come to the end, or not the property line, but the end of the house. Okay. Has anybody told you, we call that flexibility in the city, like just so that's where, because we don't technically do variance in the city. Correct, the flexibility of that word, yes. Has somebody indicated to you that flexibility is a possibility in this situation? It's possible. Okay. It's possible. Now, we did have, make it a little easier or smoother, is if my adjacent neighbor put up a fence and go to that. We were moving forward with that, but then there's that stop. But, like I said, I have pictures of different houses in that neighborhood that's gotten their permits to do the same thing. Has anyone mentioned to you whether getting flexibility for this would require going to the Community Development Board or process would be? No. Okay. I was supposed to put it all together, show them, at least what I was instructed to, was put everything together, show pictures of fences in the neighborhood, and just, like I said, that whole packet was sent, and I have confirmation that it was in there for me 20 of this year. Gotcha. I was just trying to figure out. Right. So, you have some things to do to, you're not at a point, correct me if I'm mistaken, but you're not at a point where you clearly understand what you need to do to get in compliance or get this corrected. Is that a fair statement, or do you know? No, I do not. Like I said, I was asked to put this, the reasons why I needed it are requesting the, not variance, the flexibility. Again, because it was shortening the whole fence back up, and it would be like, it doesn't lay out at all. So, you have the two houses, one here and one here. If it's way back here, how can you, I'm losing like three quarters of my property to put up a fence. So, the flexibility is to move it where the end of the house is, and it's almost lined up to the front of the next house behind. Okay. So, that way, I can also put the boat yard back on it. So, yeah, there's a lot, so it sounds like there's a lot more to do. Okay. Would you be able to be in contact with the building department to help sort these things out and understand what the things need to be done on your permit, what's required there? Okay. Do you think August would be enough time? But listening to everyone, I would probably not, because it sounds like everyone's behind on permitting. So, West and I. Inspector, what do you think? Yes or no? Yes. I'm going to give you my card so you can stay in contact with me. And I'm just, I would suggest that we keep the date. I have a discretion to not move forward with the affidavit if she is moving forward properly. And I have great communication with zoning that I can see the FLS is going in. I do watch all the permits and all the flexibility applications that come in. It's something I can just on my own hold off from bringing back with an affidavit of noncompliance if I see it's moving forward. Mr. Garrett. Hello, Kevin Garrett. I'll add a little bit that I know on that. And it's two separate processes to get your flexibility for what you're doing is probably 30 to 60 days, depending on when you get the application in. If the application is complete, then it goes to the DRC and gets approved that way. So, I would allow 60 days for that. And then you can submit for your construction permit. And for a fence permit, you're going to probably take three to five days to get that turned around back to you. So, you're probably looking to do that. Kevin, do you think it's possible this might have to go to the Community Development Board approval? Because I know that certain flexibility requests have to go to the board, whether it's a level two or something. Yeah, I don't know that I can answer that because I don't know what they're flexing on this. Because, again, I think that comes back to time because if you've got to go to CDB, then you've got to get scheduled for that. So, are you putting the fence in front of the house? No. No. I'm going to step in and suggest that if there are things to look at that in terms of unless we're in the process here of trying to figure out what a fair timeline would be in reviewing documents and stuff, that maybe we look at what is a fair amount of time to give here so that we can move forward and finish our agenda so that it works in your benefit to try and get this thing done. But it's a fair and reasonable assessment, unless I have an objection from any of you on that. I think the goal here is to try and figure out what's best and fair that will help you get this done, but also give the city, satisfy the city's concerns as well. Inspector Reese, would you have an objection? I don't want to speak out of terms for the board. Would you have an objection of 60 days? No, I have no objection, and even from that point, even if it's not done, I, again, can have discretion to continue working with her if it's moving along. The city just wants to see progression towards getting the permit. Sure. Great minds think alike, Dan. Great minds think alike. Any other questions or input? I just wanted to ask, are you doing this as a homeowner builder or do you have a contract? Good question. Homeowner. Okay. Yes. That could be daunting. Yes, it can. Any other questions from the board? Any objections to 60 days? Then that's what we'll move. All right. May I have a second motion, please? I move to enter an order requiring the respondents to correct the violations on or before September 24, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation. For each day, each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Ma'am, thank you for coming and speaking with us today and helping clarify this issue, and good luck to you. And our condolences on your host, please. Yes. All right. Moving on to agenda, item 3.26 has been continued to September. Item 3.27, case 152-26, fine respondents Ivan, Caruso Trustee, 912 Seminole Street, Land Trust, and 912 Seminole Street in violation of the 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. Hello again, board. I'm Inspector Catherine Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is at 912 Seminole Street, case number 152-26. I believe we're stuck here from expanding, so I'll just move on for now. We have one violation here for permits required. This is going to be specifically for the permit BCP-2015-11427, which was a new build for a primary structure that was voided out. The permit is required for the new primary structure that stands there today. So this started back in 2023. Multiple notices have gone out through multiple inspectors. My final one was sent out April 27th of 2026, multiple compliance dates. This is posted a notice of violation due to no certified mail being signed on the property on April 28th of 2026. This is my posting of hearing to the property on July 9th of 2026. So this is going to be right on Seminole Street in between Vine and Pennsylvania Avenue. So this is a Google photo that shows May of 2014. It was a vacant lot, and then the structure was being built April 2017. That was another Google photo, and this is February 2025. So this was the permit that was for the owner at the time, got the permit. It was voided out, and he did submit a void letter. It was handwritten that he was no longer the owner of the property, and the new owner was going to take over for the new contractor of the build. So the contractor voided out his permit. That letter was from the contractor. Was it? I believe it was from – oh, yes, it was from the contractor, correct, because he put his license number there. So if I could clarify before you go further, you mentioned the owner pulled a permit, but then the contractor voided it out. It was – I would assume we're saying that he basically – he hired a contractor who pulled a permit, and then at some point the owner saying it sold and the contractor pulled out. Right. But yet we have a building built anyway. So you're talking about a permit for new construction then? That is correct. Okay. So before the permit was voided out, a new contractor took over that permit. It was transferred over to the new contractor. Okay. Which involved the new owner of the property that he didn't have the funds to basically move forward with that anymore. So that is why it was voided out again. The owner did or the contractor? The contractor. Okay. Because ultimately the contractor is who owns that permit, so it needs to be done by the contractor, not the property owner. But the violation stands with the property, as you all know. Right. But we have a structure built. That is correct, and that's why we're here today. So my first question is what have to do with the timeline about when was the – we have an initial permit that was applied for and was approved. And then at some point the owner, the original contractor, before he voided his permit, another contractor took it over. So I'm assuming that timeline-wise you have a permit that's submitted, a permit that's approved. At some point construction begins. The owner of the property sells the property. A new contractor takes the permit over, and the old contractor voids it. One of the questions I have is where in this did construction start during this whole process? Somewhere in between the 2017 photo and – well, the original permit was applied for – let me see if I can go back to the permit – in 2015. November 25th of 2015 is when it was applied for. So it was some time ago, and then – About a year? Yes. So ultimately – long story short, the property owner could not move forward with the finances to – with the contractor, which is not the city's concern. The city's concern is who's going to pull this permit for this new build. So that's where we're at today. We have a new build that has no permit. We don't know where inspections stand, and if this structure – it holds the integrity, you know, to code. Are you able to tell, under the original permit, was there any construction done? Were there any inspections done? I mean, what occurred? Yes. There were multiple – I did not – I apologize. I usually do put those screenshots in, but because it's a voided permit, I think that's why I left it out. It is irrelevant at this point because they will have to start from scratch with a new permit. I did here, however, include how many times the system did send that their permit was expiring and, you know, all of that. It took the contractor – this letter to void was sent September 6th of 2023, and that is when the initial violation for the stop workator got from the original inspect. So it took them that long to submit that for it to become aware that this was still happening and that the structure is now up. So at this time, we just need them to come in compliance by obtaining an after-the-fact permit for the primary structure with inspections. So the fact that it was – the property changed hands and the fact that work occurred somewhere during this time period, the fact that there was no approved permit and no approved inspections that we're able to see, it's basically that – really the fact that the property was sold and the contractor left so on and so forth, it still boils down to the basic fact that at the end of the day, you have a property built without a valid permit and inspections, and that's what we're here with, right? Right. And they were – all notice violations were sent to the property owner and property appraiser who owns it today. So they are aware of the violation. They took over the property knowing that this was still going to be, you know, needing a permit. Have you spoken with the owner? No. I'm assuming you've sent them notices, but you've not heard any of them. I've sent notices. I've posted to property. I've attempted to knock. I've had no communication. Somebody had to do a lot of help. There's a lot of missing data there, but it doesn't affect us much, I don't believe. Does anybody else have questions? I do. Is the house occupied? I believe so. There's vehicles that are always parked there. I just don't think anybody wants to talk with me. So – You're not welcome. Well, the utilities are obviously – Right. It could be, you know, attended in there. I really – Yeah. It would all be guesses at this point. Can you tell how far it got into the approval of the previous – I only ask because is it dangerous for people to be living in there? It's not permitted. So anything that's not permitted and has not been inspected is potentially dangerous. It's called squaw. Well, it's potential hazards, too. Yes. You know. Okay. Any other questions? It would be an easy one. Can I get a first motion? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. 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 August 24th 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, collect, or settle such lien. Can I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector Reese. Thank you. Item 3.8 on our agenda has been withdrawn. 3.28 has been withdrawn. Moving on to old business items, we have a request by a petitioner. Case 7E-23, consider a request by petitioners IEV and Elan at 1383 Gulf to Bay Boulevard to reduce the fine regarding graffiti. And if approved, issue an order that specifies a fine that includes administration costs and establish the date payable. The lien will revert to its original amount. Now, I know we have a written request submitted to us, but I don't see anybody here to speak on this one or address it. And I see that we also have our original minutes. Speaking from the chair's position, my concern about this one is that there's very little data here. This is a large amount, and I'm not exactly sure how to approach a reduction on this, but I welcome any comments or questions or whatever from the board. I wish this guy had a friend. Yeah, that would. So, board, I have been in contact. The property owner is not able to be here. He's elderly. His realtor was desperately trying to help him through this process, and she got him to fill out the application, and she submitted it to me. So, I just wanted you to be aware that he wasn't able to be here. I just don't know. Is, like, the graffiti gone now? Yep, I can give a little more information on the status of the building. The violation was for a different graffiti on boarded-up windows. The graffiti has been cleaned since 2025. The property is in compliance with the violation that was cited that these leads have been accruing for. There are potentially some other issues at the building that have nothing to do with this violation of the lien reduction. However, it looks like from his reduction paperwork, it looks like there's a sale pending. So, in the, you know, getting a new owner in who potentially would take over the building and fix those issues, we would not oppose and be supportive of a lien reduction. I think we have seen cases in the past, too, where an owner will, or potential owner or buyer will come to the city and discuss these items and come up with a stipulated agreement. Without any other input other than the limited data we have here, I wouldn't know where else to go with this. I can touch a little bit on that, too, with the stipulated agreement is that there currently are no other violations cited. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. Sorry, for the stipulated agreement, there currently are no other violations cited in the system. When this came at, this lien reduction request came in, we went out and looked at the property and said there are theoretically some other violations at the property. However, there are not currently any cases open, so there's nothing to stipulate at this point. Right. I don't oppose with reducing the lien. Is this a residence or a minimum? I have pictures if you'd like to see, but it's a strip mall on Gulf to Bay. Yeah. I looked it up. It's kind of on the – isn't it on kind of just – it's just past where Gulf to Bay takes off of Cleveland Street. There are some strip centers as you kind of go up the hill toward the big bend up there at Highland. I know this is like an older strip center of two to four storefronts. Yeah. And the MapQuest or Google Maps shows – you can look on the building and you see their old photo that has the plywood and the graffiti on it for whatever that's worth. And if that's been corrected now, then so be it. Okay, so can I – Mr. Salsman, do you have the administrative cost? Yes. The total administrative cost of $1,053.20. Thank you. Now, that having been $1,053.20. That having been said, the owner has requested a lien reduction of $1,500. So – We can't override that. Say it again? I said we can determine just that – Are you aware of who the buyer is? No, we're not aware of anything beyond the reduction paperwork that they've submitted. See, it bothers me that, you know, these – I don't want this to be a formula where developers or people that flip houses come in knowing that they're going to get this thing taken away, and yet they're still getting the property for something less than market value. I understand. So, you know, we don't have much information here. Like, we've seen somewhere there have been trustees, they've been flipping it between family members. And I don't – Yeah, whatever. They're shaking loose the responsibility here. Well – They didn't take any action when they could have. They waited until they flipped the house, and then they get this lien reduction. It's not a house. It's a business. And that's not part of the conversation that I think we were going to have later on. Right, but the facts is that the property is in compliance. There's no further issues other than what she mentioned, and why not? Why wouldn't we just allow them to – Well, I'd like to address his point. The city's saying it's okay. You brought up – I'm sorry, I didn't interrupt anybody. There's several viewpoints being thrown in here, which I appreciate the input. But I've got – I want to go back to your point about in terms of a formative for reducing these things, I think one of the things is he's not – he did not wait until this. I see from this that, you know, the guy says between the pandemic and being homeless and new employment, I can understand how those issues might affect a building owner. I'm not even in favor of a formula either that would automatically reduce fines every time we have something come before us or waiting until a building is sold to handle it. I think that the fact that it's been brought – that those issues have been dealt with, and as far as the graffiti is concerned, it is in compliance. Good for the building owner. At least he took – you know, at some point in time, took that responsibility. So I think that, you know, that's an important fact. I think that apparently the fines went on for some period of time to get to a point of $75,900. It's also – in terms of reducing fines for a new owner, that's the incentive for a new owner to come in. And we've seen several cases over the last, you know, few years where either investors, flippers, whatever you want to call them, new homeowners, whatever have come in and acquired a property, and part of the incentive for them to do that is they know they can handle that. And they come in and they fully handle the property, and now it's off the books. It's in compliance. It stays in compliance because you have a new and different owners. And I think on the opposite side of a formula that reduces, a formula that would hold high liens in place would inhibit and stop sale of properties. It would be put a hardship on an owner, on a new owner that didn't create it, if they're even willing to buy it after the fact. One of the advantages that comes from reducing these when there is a sale on it would be that the new owner knows that, okay, he didn't – number one, he didn't create it, so he's not the one that let it sit for that long. But he is the guy that comes in and cleans it up and makes it a – corrects the problem back to where it's in compliance, it's no longer an eyesore, and it's now no longer on code enforcement or a continued thing because it is a new owner. So I think that's the upside of it. So I understand both arguments. I think that if there is, in fact, this green, a sale on the property or a sale pending or something like that, from my experience here on the board, it seems there's two ways to approach it. Number one is to just impose the lien and let a new buyer do some sort of a stipulated agreement with the city or reduce the fine now for the amount requested or less in terms of administrative fees. Please reduce it to help facilitate the sale. My only concern about that is that not having a representative here and no data regarding an actual sale, if that is not the case, then we're simply letting the existing owner off the hook with no real penalty other than whatever – if we reduce it, then, I mean – Why don't we just make the agreement contingent on the sale then and just put some sort of stipulation in the agreement? Well, I don't understand why – he corrected it. It's done. There's nothing – he fixed what needed to be fixed. Whether he – I don't know if it's a – if he's got a realtor, he's probably got something going on there. Well, I'd like to say that it was brought to our attention that it was the realtor that filled out the application and handled this, and the sale is listed two days from now. Oh, is it? Yeah, it's right here. The sale will happen on the 24th, Friday. So this is a buyer purchasing the property. First place right there. Oh, I get you. Yeah, okay. Sale pending on the property. Thank you, Ms. Ryan. Yeah. Anderson, sorry. All right. Anyway. I think we can just put it in motion. Yeah, exactly. Do this. Get this done. All right. So the only question that – if that's the case and there's no objection from the board, then the only question remaining is he's requested a lien reduction down to $1,500, and the administrative fees are less than that. Any discussion or input from the board about what that number should be? Just leave it at the $1,500 as requested. Or I'd go to the $1,053. I don't care either one way. We've always usually gone to the actual costs. Say again? We've usually always gone to the actual costs. Yeah. Most people don't know what they are anyway. Yeah. Okay. Ready? All right. If there's no objection to the administrative fees of $1,053.20, then I'll go – and there's no further discussion, I'll entertain a motion. I move to enter an order reducing the amount of the lien to administrative costs of $1,053.20 within 30 days, or the lien will revert to its original amount. Do you have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Nay. Motion carries. Was there a nay? Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. On the other board action, we have affidavits of compliance, which we typically all do in one motion. And so regarding case 87-17, 86-19, 40-22, 71-25, 93-25, 4-26, 83-26, 100-26, and 159-26. May I have a motion to accept the affidavits of compliance as listed? I mean to accept the affidavits of compliance as listed. May I have a second? Second. I'm sorry. Second. I'm sorry. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. 5.2 on our agenda has been continued to August 26th. All right. On case- Point three? Yeah, I was just making sure I noticed something in an earlier list, and I just want to make sure I didn't miss it. Moving on to agenda item 5.3, case 79-26, accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondents with Alexander Gabrychik and Snezhana Gabrychik at 1623 Windsor Place for permits. Council, I believe, and we've, based on history, we've decided we don't necessarily need a presentation. It's simply an affidavit of noncompliance. We could spend time reviewing it, but why? Exactly. All right. I mean, the point is they haven't come in compliance. The inspector has given you an affidavit saying they're not in compliance. Correct. So all you need to do to start your order for fines is to accept the affidavits of noncompliance. So unless somebody is here to say there's something that is wrong with what the inspector has brought forward, I mean, we used to do it this way, just accept the affidavits of noncompliance. Well, we're running along here. I see no reason to do that unless, you know, somebody has an objection. And then I'll ask for a motion upon case 7926 to accept the affidavit of noncompliance. I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance as listed. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? No, no, no. No, that's the wrong one. Sorry, I got it. It's right here. All right. We'll cancel that motion and request a new 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. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Item 5.4 on our agenda has been continued to August. Item 5.5, case 88-26, accept the affidavits of noncompliance for respondents Alexander Gabrychik and Snezana Gabrychik at 1623. Winds are placed for permits, room addition. As before, unless there's some objection, we'll move forward with a motion for accepting the affidavit of noncompliance. 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. And Chair, I'm sorry, before you go on, the item 5.6, we will do that after the nuisance abatement cases. Okay. Okay. So we move it down our agenda. Yes. Okay. All right. Moving on to the nuisance abatement lien filings. Item agenda 6.1 has been withdrawn. Madam Chairman has requested that item 6.2 be withdrawn as well. Item 6.3, case 180-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Eliana Santos-Torres and Gio Denny Villas-Vilima at 1215 Elder Street. For an inoperative vehicle, an initial order with a compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. After the new game board, Inspector Dixon with the City of Clearwater. This is case 180-26 for 1215 Eldridge Street. One violation at the property for inoperable vehicles. The notices were posted and mailed on 6.30 with a compliance date of July the 10th. I was across the street and had requests of another property owner to look at something, and I noticed a dump truck with no tag on it and a van without a tag. There's also a car in the front yard without a tag, so I posted notice on the vehicles that I could get to over by the street. As of this morning, the vehicle, the car still has no tag, and the dump truck doesn't have a tag. The van's been moved over to the driveway, so I couldn't verify that, but there's still two vehicles without tags on the property. So compliance can be met by removing the vehicles from the property or make repairs so the vehicle is roadworthy as well as display a current license plate that is assigned to the vehicle. And we're requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. This is just a wild guess, Greg, but would you say with those vehicles and that truck, dump truck, we've got someone starting a used car. That or a construction business? Yeah. I'm not sure. The dump truck can be there regardless if it had a good tag, but... Well, I was looking at those two cars lined up there, the way they're... They haven't reached out to me. I move to enter an order of 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 the charge of 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. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Carries. Inspector. Item 6.4 on the agenda, case 181-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Joe Daniels at 1265 Palmetto Street for inoperative vehicle and issue an order with compliance deadline, and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Dixon? In this case, 181-26 for 1265 Palmetto Street. There's one violation at the property for inoperable vehicles. Notice the violation was posted in mail on July 2nd with a compliance date 10 days later. There's two vehicles at the property that have expired tags on them. Today, the vehicles are still there. They still have expired tags. Compliance can be met by removing the vehicles or make repairs to make them roadworthy, current license plates that are assigned to the vehicles, requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. I did speak to the owner of the house. He doesn't know. Well, he knows who the vehicles belong to, but he can't get a hold of them, and it's gone. But I told him I had to go through the process. Their funeral. All right. Any questions from the board? May I have a motion, please? I move to enter an order funding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry into the property, to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with a reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property. If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. I'm going to have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Carries. Good for it. Thank you, sir. Agenda Item 6.5, Case 182-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Benjamin Hernandez at 1771 Townsend Street for public health, safety, or welfare nuisance pool and issue an order of the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Kasman. This one I'm also going to be asking for a declaration of violation. The owner did end up cleaning the pool, and it is now in an acceptable state today. All right. Any questions from the board before we – all right, I'm ready for a declaration of violation. I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may impose a daily fine and order the city to take all reasonable action to abate and maintain the nuisance, including entry into the property, and charge the respondent with those costs, fines, and fees, which will become a lien on the property. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kasman. 6.6 on our agenda. Case 183-26. Accept the nuisance abatement. Lean for respondent Sergei Nergham and Julianne Merchak at 769 Harbor Island for lot clearing. And issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation. If compliance is not met, Inspector Maddox? Kevin Maddox, code compliance inspector for the city of Clearwater, case number 183-26 for 769 Harbor Island, nuisance abatement. One violation of 1503B7B8B5A for lot clearing, overgrowth, overgrowth right away, and accumulation of debris and trash. Notice the violation was sent June 29th, compliance date by July 6th. On the 26th, the green card was not received back, but it was posted. On the 26th, posted, this is more pictures of lawn, grass, and weeds on a demolished lot out on this area. 714, again, the grass is just a little bit longer. The bushes are a little bit taller. And today, the bushes were, again, a little bit taller. Compliance can be met for lot clearing by cutting all grass and vegetation, including the curb line, removing all trash and debris, and continuing to keep it clean. Requesting compliance five days after the vendors are sold. Thank you, sir. Questions from the board? No motion, please. Anybody? I'm going to enter. Go ahead. I'm moved 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 evade 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. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Aye. Moving on to agenda item 6.7, case 184-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents IW Management LLC at 946 Lantana Avenue. For lot clearing and issue an order with a compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Maddox. Kevin Maddox, Code Compliance Inspector, City of Clearwater, case number 184-26 for 946 Lantana Avenue. This is nuisance abatement. One violation of Code Section 1503B7B8B5A for overgrowth, right-of-way overgrowth, and accumulation of debris and trash. Notice the violation was sent and posted on 6.17 compliance date by 6.29. The green card was received, signed. Here it was posted. The grass is fairly deep, even though the picture does not portray that. Later I have a 12-inch cone that shows it's over that height. On 7.14, the cone here is buried, but yet the grass doesn't look too bad. But when you compare it to the neighbor's yard, you can see the height is starting to creep up. On today's date, the height was just a little taller. Compliance can be met for lot clearing by cutting all grass, including the curved line sidewalk, and continuing to maintain it, removing all trash and debris, continuing to keep it clean. And we are requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. Thank you, sir. Questions from the board? I'm ready for 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. Second. All right. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Carries. Agenda Item 6.8, Case 185-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Thomas C. Little Estate at 1322 South Hillcrest Avenue for light clearing and issue an order with a compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Jensen, you have the floor. Good afternoon, Board. Dave Jensen, Code Inspector with the City of Clearwater. This is 1322 Hillcrest, case number 185-26. We won violation for a 3-15-03-B-5-A. 3-15-03-B-5-A for accumulation of junk and debris. This was actually called in by a neighbor that's right next door. Part of her issue is she's trying to sell the house, and she's indicating she's having some issues because of what's going on next door. Notice the violation was sent and posted as well as being posted to City Hall. There's the posting. I mean, this property has been an issue for the last couple of years. Apparently, the owner's deceased. It's part of an estate that's being handled by an attorney's office. I have spoken with the attorney's office. They're trying to get cooperation from whomever is at the property, and it's not really clear who's occupying the property right now. The attorney's office told me that they're getting to run around one party saying it's the other party's fault with who would be among the people living in the house. So, as you can see, on the first day we went out there, there was a mattress and some other junk present on site. This whole line of garbage is on the one side of the garage. This is the backyard. This was a small homeless-style encampment that had been erected. This is taken from the neighbor's yard. She provided me with some more pictures. There's a very deep gully right there. I'm not really sure how she came in to get pictures, but the whole backyard was just full of junk and debris, bike parts, broken down pieces, and things like that. But this is the other day, the date of compliance, this pile of garbage is out the road. We don't allow garbage to be put out to the street until the night before pickup. This was on Monday. Their pickup in that area is on Friday. So this is still just considered junk and debris that's on the property. The pile is still there today. I actually put a tag on the junk letting them know they needed to get it back from the curb line. It was still there this morning when I was out there. And you can see I tagged the trailer because it's in violation of a different ordinance that we're not worried about today. This was the side of the garage on the date of compliance. The large pile of garbage is gone. However, there's still just a bunch of junk present there. And same thing out with another view of the garbage out front. That was out back. They did take the encampment-style thing down. However, this stuff showed up. Fence pieces. This pile of garbage over here that wasn't there before is now showing up on the date of compliance. So nothing's really getting removed from the property. Things are just apparently getting shuffled around. This is from this morning. Nothing's been moved away from the curb. This is the side of the house where all the garbage is at. There's some different garbage out there now. A bag of what looks like household waste. Nothing's really changed out back. Just looks like the pile has been. While it was present, this subject and another subject there. Female, we're screaming profanities. I could be heard from it. So this place is suffering as a neighborhood. Again, the attorney's office is speaking with them, trying to get some cooperation. It doesn't sound like it's happening. So, unfortunately, that's why we're here. Compliance can be met for accumulation of junk and debris. By removing all the junk, trash, anything else. Asking for it. How ironic that they have all that junk and garbage yet. There's a recycle bin. You know. Can't figure that one out. To your part for the environment, I guess. Questions from the board? May I have a motion, please? I move to enter an order of finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order. The respondent does not imply within the time specified that the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property, to evade and maintain a nuisance, and charge the respondent with reasonable costs, which will become a lien on the property. Cost, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such a lien is filed. The city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such a lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you, Inspector. Appreciate it. But not least, item 6.9, case 187-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents bridge SFRIVC borrower LLC at 514 North Duncan Avenue for lock clearing. And issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation. Compliance is not met. Inspector Kasman. Good afternoon, board. Daniel Kasman, code enforcement inspector for the city of Fairlander. This is for case number 187-26 for 514 North Duncan Avenue. It's a nuisance abatement. One violation here for code section 3-1503, V8, V7, and V5A for lock clearing. These are the dates of notice of violation went out with the compliance date. And the update is on the same day as the notice of violation. Notice the property that came as a complaint from the neighbors. Uneven lawn, the shade from the tree up front. Went back up to the compliance date. It mostly had been cut, but there were a few sections that you can see there. They just kind of ignored in the middle of the yard. And another portion of it was I asked them to please edge the curb and get the lawn from growing out into the street. Again, on that little, if you can see this little area, this area here, the property line actually goes a little bit further than the fence, the property appraiser. This area over here, they kind of didn't want this section up front mowing. And then a little bit on the side of the house there. I'm not really concerned too much about the ferns underneath the tree. That's okay. I'm talking more so about the lawn itself. This is the guy on the 10th. This was this morning. The grass has grown overall in the entire property, but in those same sections still hasn't really been addressed. It's gotten even longer. That's that section up front by the house. And then they made an attempt to do some edging, but didn't really finish the job. That wasn't satisfactory. And there's still more edging that has to happen. Now, compliance met for the lot clearing by mowing the lawn and edging the curb. Requesting compliance every four or five days from the date of the board. 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 with 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. I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you, Inspector Kasman. Thank you, Daniel. Before we adjourn, we have item 5.6 on our agenda, discuss nuisance abatement and lien reduction process. Now, I'm not exactly sure what this entails, but I'm sure somebody's going to tell us. Well, I think there was some confusion at the last meeting regarding this, and there was actually a discussion when we talked about the nuisance abatement. Normally, nuisance abatement cases are exactly what you heard, which is there's a nuisance, the city wants it to take care of within five days, and if it's not taken care of, they want to come on either with themselves or a contracted agent to come and take care of the nuisance, and then lien the property. The city apparently has a, and you had one of the cases today, where you actually found somebody that has corrected it prior, but they still wanted your normal kind of code case, and that is because, I guess, here in Clearwater, it's unique in that their nuisance, general nuisance cases all come under the nuisance abatement. That's not what you normally see. What you normally see is what I said earlier, which is you're abating a nuisance, you're coming in, you're clearing it up. So that's one of the things that we want to make sure that you all understand why those are under nuisance abatement as opposed to general cases that you hear. Which I would also point out, for the future, I think we could definitely move that up to the new business because the abandoned building also falls under the nuisance ordinances, and that does go under the new business, like the other, the CDC cases, so like your exterior surface property maintenance. Those are usually the ones you're hearing that we're requesting fines, like Andy said. Normally, when we're doing a nuisance, we're seeking ability to come onto the property. However, there are some cases where we don't have the ability to basically, like, the one we heard this afternoon was for a green pool. The city doesn't have the contractor or ability currently to go on and fix someone's pool on their property, so in something like that, we'd be seeking fines like we would for other types of ordinances. So in a future agenda, we would make sure that goes up on the beginning, like, new business. That way, you know you're still reading the normal, you have a compliance date or a fine, so that way we don't get confused. Anytime you throw something that's a little out of the ordinary, I think we sometimes struggle to know which script parts to read. That's also something that Nicole and I are working on, or I'm working on, and Nicole forwarded me the paperwork. Appreciate it. We're looking at overall, like, the scripts, the how we run the meetings. I think it hasn't been looked at in a relatively long time, so I'm kind of looking at what we're currently doing as far as process, what's changed, what should be changed. So I'm currently looking at all the scripts, what can be changed, what needs to come before the board before it can be changed. So I'm kind of looking at our process, the scripts, and our rules of order, and basically looking at potentially modernizing some things. And I believe what I would probably do is do a first draft, and then have another kind of post-meeting discussion like this, where we kind of go over it, see if the board is an input on it. Like, you agreed, you disagree, what would you like to see updated and changed, and that we were kind of all on the same page moving forward in a positive direction with the board. So what we're looking at is basically two things. Number one, changing the agenda somewhat. I presume that if we're changing the order of the agenda and moving this, no? No, no. What we would be doing is taking those cases, like you heard today, that's not a traditional nuisance abatement, and moving it up as separate from this. I got you. These should all be the same. They should be, you're making a determination to allow somebody to come on to the process. All right. But that'll be reflected. If you move something to a different area, it's going to be reflected in the agenda. And then the other part of that would be, if you're changing the verbiage or you're the wording of motions and stuff, you're going to bring those? Yeah, we would go over those with you. Those are always a work in progress. We haven't changed those in a long time. However, we would make sure that you're comfortable with what it language is that we're putting in there. And Chair, like you said, going back, one of the changes is going back to accepting the affidavits of noncompliance. Because basically, and you had another case about that earlier, the whole idea is you give a date. This is the date to come in compliance. There are several different ways, obviously, to come in compliance. Knock down a house, potentially, you know, correct whatever the issue is. Once we're at the stage where they haven't come in compliance, it's just an affidavit. Now, the city doesn't have to submit that affidavit immediately because they might be working with the individual. So that's one of the things you all talked about, too. Do we need to give additional time? Are they going to be working with them? Well, normally what you see, at least in my experience, dealing with the city has been they'll work with them unless someone's, you know, not communicating with them. And they won't bring you the affidavit of noncompliance until they have to. Remember, the intention of this board, as you read it, is to have compliance. We're not here for necessarily for fines. We're here to get compliance. And so that's the first level. It's just when people don't want to do anything that the only power you have is to issue a fine or do a nuisance abatement. So those are really, that's all you have. And that's all the city can really go after these people. So that's why you see some of these cases that way. And let me lead into the lean reduction, which actually, I think you all did it today in exactly the correct way. You discussed what information you needed. Did you have sufficient information? These are case-by-case basis. You cannot sit there and say, okay, we're automatically going to reduce it 50 percent, or we're not going to reduce at all in these particular cases. Because each one turns on a different fact. But I think the discussion you all had was perfect because the other part about it is the city and you all, as residents of the city, are looking to have these properties cleaned up, right? And so the only way we really get that normally is if they sell the property. And so we're looking for people to buy the property. Obviously, if there is such a high lien, they're not going to. And we're going to just have a continual eyesore. So the intention here is to try to get somebody new in that's going to put in money into these properties. Whether it is a developer or whether it's a strip center, you know, owner that's putting in new businesses, all you're really looking at in those cases are trying to get somebody that's going to come in and clean it up. There are the occasions where we have fines that are different, and they sit there for a different reason. You've had those, but the norm is what you saw today. Those are the ones you're going to normally see. And they're vetted by the city before they come here. So the city's looking at these and going, okay, we're dealing with these people. They're trying to buy the property. A lot of times we see it where the sale is only a couple days away. And so it's kind of quickly, but we try to accommodate those people because we want to see those properties rehabbed. I mean, that's the goal here. But there are the occasions where the fines are appropriate. I think you see those more in the short-term rental cases where people are just not, you know, they're not doing it and they're willing to accept, okay, well, it's just the cost of doing business, right? And so those are a little different, but each one has to be taken on its own case-by-case facts. What I thought today might have been lacking was that we didn't have a representative because it's good to have a representative to answer your questions, to give you that comfort as to what really is going on. In fact, Nicole and I were talking about that briefly when that case came up is maybe you guys would continue it if it wasn't that there was a sale pending so closely in those cases that we have a representative because I think that brings you more understanding and more information that you can determine as to whether or not these are appropriate. So we'll look into making sure that happens. The majority, I would say, almost all of them, we always have a representative. So it's a little odd not to have somebody. But based on the circumstances that we glean, it makes sense why the guy couldn't be here, have a representative. And even if he can't be here, like we got, we had that one lady who lived somewhere else, not in the state. She sent a letter. You know, that's the realtor is the one. Normally you do see a letter or a person. It's odd not to have. Yeah. Should the realtor have been here or missed a... If they have the ability to represent, I think, though, you guys figured it out pretty quickly. I mean, the sales in two days, they need it. The reduction is... I mean, this is not one... This one's graffiti, right? So those circumstances... And you cleaned it up. Right. Are not one where you have a constant problem with the property. So that's a unique one. I don't know. I'm trying to think the last time we had one. I can't even tell you. And I can't imagine... It wouldn't even come to you. We would not bring it before you. A rare circumstance might be the city will bring something to you on an agreed, you know, deal. But we don't bring them before you unless you're in... So, Nicole, for these type of cases, we don't do those agreements. Do you remember how you used to do those stipulated agreements? We still do. We still do one, though. Yeah. We did one, though. We have not had one in front. A long ago. But, like, do we do one for every lien reduction? Or when would we... No. What would be the circumstance for doing one now, I guess? A stipulated agreement before if they still had open violations. Right. That makes sense. Open violations where they're... The person who's going to buy it is going to correct it. Right. That makes sense. I had one a couple of years ago. I was selling a duplex to investors, and there had been a fire. And the fines had accumulated and accumulated, but my guys were given, you know, administrative costs as long as they did all the repairs within so many days. And those agreements still go to the board for approval? Okay. I mean, again, those are circumstances where we're trying to get compliance, right? Trying to get somebody to clean it up. That's right. Because we don't want eyesores, and we don't want, you know, on this one that we were looking at where the neighbor is trying to say, sell their property, they can't because this person has all those things. So that's the intent of these. But I think you just cannot come up with a blanket formula because you have to look at the circumstances of each case. And if there's something, and today was one, where we need to make sure you have something, which is to have a representative or a letter, we will make sure that that is there. And if there's something else that comes up that you want to see, we're happy to bring that to you. Excellent. One last thing I have before we adjourn is that one of the things that you mentioned in looking everything over is potential procedural changes. And now that the chair has just gotten comfortable running a meeting without a cheat sheet, if we're going to make any changes, I would like to see kind of something in writing so I can wrap my head around it. We would absolutely bring it. Step on my tongue too many times during the meeting. I would appreciate that. After I do a first draft, my plan will be to bring it to the board and have another side meeting like this, kind of go through the changes. I'm not necessarily looking to make sweeping grand changes. I'm more looking to basically codify what we're already doing that isn't quite written down, like the affidavit and noncompliance. Be like, if there's no owner here, you can accept the affidavit and noncompliance, if there is an owner then. So basically codifying and having that written down so that there's no confusion. So if we had a brand new board tomorrow, they'd know what we've been doing. You're talking basically streamlining. Streamlining and making sure everything we're actually currently doing is written down for the future generations. I would make a suggestion of putting like a glossary, like what is an affidavit, what is it, you know, just a little, it can be very quick. I would also be interested in doing a training with the board once we kind of get this sort of through, kind of going through how does co-compliance work, how does our process work. Because a lot of times we say acronyms and we say what we're doing and we assume that everyone knows because it's what we do every day. We assume that everyone knows what we're talking about, but that shouldn't be an assumption. So I would like to do a training with everyone too, especially as we go through this drafting process. And miscellaneous motions. I was just going to say, you know, I put in a motion to reduce whatever. I mean, it's fine, but there's a few miscellaneous ones that aren't right now. Mix and boilerplate ones, I agree. There's a few of them we've had to make up on the fly. Okay, I hope this works. And there is nothing wrong with you coming up with one that says something along the lines of, well, we just want to continue this one for 60 days. Because we don't want any other action taken. You can do that. So it's all up to you. But potentially running down some draft ones that we have done, some odd ones in the past, maybe some examples. Yeah, with like a little this, you do this when this happens, you do this when this happens. Well, the other advantage you have, I'm sorry, Chair, we either have one or two things that happens here. Either we have new members, significant new members on the board, or we have new inspectors. You have very experienced inspectors. Yeah. So that is an advantage to your cases being seen. We don't have the problems we've had in the past. So that's a good sign. Okay. Anything else before we adjourn? One, going once, going twice. We are adjourned. Thank you, Board. One, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once, going once.