Municipal Code Enforcement Board on 2026-08-26 1:30 PM - Aug 26, 2026

Good day. Today's meeting of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board is called to order on August 26, 2026. Welcome, everyone. Please rise to the Pledge of Allegiance. Please be seated. Agendas of today's meeting are on the wall at the entrance of chambers. Please remember to turn off your cell phones. The Municipal Code Enforcement Board consists of seven members who are appointed by the City Council. We serve voluntarily. It is this Board's intention to promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Clearwater by providing this equitable, effective, and inexpensive method of enforcing certain codes within the City. The Board considers new business items in two parts. First, the violation, and then affirmative relief. Formal rules of evidence do not apply. Each site is limited to 15 minutes. The Board may grant additional time. All proceedings will be conducted in a calm, civil manner. Individuals who conduct themselves otherwise will be asked to leave. If necessary, they will be escorted from chambers. Now I ask all who plan to speak, please rise and be sworn in by the Clerk. Wherefrom to tell the truth throughout your entire testimony. Thank you. Before we move on to approving of minutes, Ms. Anderson had something that she wanted to offer. Yes, I would like to ask for both efficiency and in consideration of everyone's time that the Board remember that we're here to determine if there's a code violation or not a code violation. It's not our job to provide sympathy, empathy, find out why a situation exists, or try to provide solutions to the problems. It's just our job to find out, is there a code violation or is there not a code violation. And if there's a code violation, we use our guideline as to how to proceed. So I just wanted to remind everybody of that, okay? Thank you very much. That's a point well taken. Thank you. I mean, I know that I'll just, as a comment, say that quite often we're all trying to understand and learn and so on and so forth. But we have a long agenda. We've had meetings that have gone three and a half hours. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Next in our agenda is approval of minutes. May I have a motion to approve the minutes? I'd like to approve the minutes. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next on our agenda is new business items. Our first agenda item, 3.1, is continued to November 18th. Next agenda item, 3.2, has been withdrawn. Agenda item 3.3 has been withdrawn. 3.4 is continued to September. 3.5 is continued to October. 3.6, case 183-25, status update regarding respondents Elizabeth Anderson at 200 Leward Island in violation of code for unsafe building. Are you Ms. Anderson? Yes. I thought so. We've seen you before. I saw you just come in. Did you get sworn in? Okay. I did that. All right. Very good. All right. So let's get a status update on this case. All right. Good afternoon, code board. This is going to be in reference to 200 Leward Island and Inspector Kat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is for case 183-25. So I know the board is well aware of this property. It has already been found in noncompliance. So this is just a recorded update of the property and what the city intends to do moving forward. And this is the property that we're speaking of. These are basically the original pictures of the inspections. To date, this is generally what it looks like. So I'm just going to move forward through that. So the city did receive an email. Ms. Anderson has been accepted into the program with the Pinellas County Recovers. We do have confirmation that they have found her eligible and have accepted her to get the demolition of the existing structure and start a new build. So that's great for her. Awesome. And I'm a builder. Thanks. Good. I'm a builder. They do have a permit that is in review. They are meeting conditions on a timely manner. So that's what the city wants. We did start the process for the demolition quotes, which we do have in the event that something goes wrong, the city is prepared to move forward. But at this time, we will be working with Ms. Anderson for her to restore her property. And that is it. Am I correct in thinking that you're not asking for anything from the board? Nope. Just an update. Excellent. Super. And since you folks are here, whoever would like to speak, please come up. Tell us. Give us your name and address in relation to the property. So my name is Brandy Canada, and I work for Assist to Build. And through the Pinellas Recovers Program, we are the assigned contractor for Ms. Anderson. We are well underway. We've requested our own permits. So we're in the demolition process of that. Duke was out today. So I'll have the demolition letter from them issued. As soon as I have that, I can start demolition. Our goal is to start in the next two weeks to demo and then to rebuild her house back. I actually have the floor plans if anyone would like to see those for her new home. So just keeping in mind that she is disaster recovery, and she's trying her best. And she's actually been living in her car, which we've also found her placement, to be able to live so she won't be on the property as well. That's awesome. Do you guys need anything from us as Assist to Build or the Pinellas Recovers Program? No. Not at this point. If the inspector's happy and not asking us to do anything, then we're happy not to do it. Okay. We just wanted to make sure that she was going to be squared away and that we didn't have any issues moving forward and getting the house built back. Let me ask the board. Does the board have any questions? I just had a question for you. I think we got to the point where she was going to start getting fined. Did we get to that point and she's not getting fined now? We were not asking for fines. We were asking to go on the property for a demolition. So we will not be moving forward at this time as long as they get an active permit and start work. There's no reason for the city to have involvement in that. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for this lady? Do you want to talk to me? Do you want to talk to us? I think we're good. The city's not asking for anything. There's no motions to be made. It's simply we acknowledge the fact that we've been updated unless council tells me different. No, sir. Congratulations, Ms. Anderson. I think we're good and congratulations. I'm very happy for you. That's great news. And thank you for your help and for updating us. All right. If there's nothing else, we'll move on. Next case, agenda item 3.7, case 103-26, rehearing fine respondents Michael Plunkett at 205 South San Remo Avenue in violation of code for unsafe building and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? All right. Ms. Reese, you have the floor. Hello again, code board. This is for 205 South San Remo Avenue. This is going to be for case 103-26. And I'm Inspector Kat Reese with the City of Fleetwood. I am positive you all are well aware of this property. So we had this code board hearing in May. We reheard it because it had been some time from the original order that was on the old case. So we reopened a new case and started the process over to cover our basis as a city. In that code board hearing, the order was given, however, what was written in the order and what was stated at the previous code board do not quite match or give us, the city, what they need to move forward. So to keep this as simple as possible, these are just reminder pictures of the property. So this is the lien certificates, and this was the order that was given. So the order is correct, but just to ensure that everything is done correctly, the city is asking that you strike this order and start a new order. So that way we can move forward. The verbiage that we would like on record is that the structure is not in compliance. By September 9, 2026, the city asks the board to authorize entrance onto the property to correct the violations. The city will correct the violations by any means necessary to include demolition with any reasonable costs to be applied as liens against the property. So that is the difference in the original – the previous code board, it was stated under an affidavit, which that is not correct. So that is why we're asking for the strike and a new order. Any questions? So the only question I have might be for council if we're going to make a motion. Is this the same case number as before? We're simply killing the original motion, or do we have a new case number? The original order from some time ago, I believe it was over a year ago, is a completely different case. So that is why we started the new case, so that way we can move forward with an order that is matching the timeline for what the city is needing to do. This property is an extreme nuisance to the city and any citizens around it. So we are looking to have a demolition on this property. So it's the same case number from a few months ago, right? Correct. From May. So what may be the way to get the – Okay, we just amend the order. We could do that too, probably. Yeah, that's all we need to do. It would be easier from my position as chair to strike the old order and then just get a new declaration or whatever. If she has verbiage for a new order, then to follow that, to strike the old and then make a new motion and pass it. Whatever you want. But if we just amend the order to the language that she's requesting. Okay. I made a motion to amend to accept the language as requested and then it's done. Well, that makes it easy. Yeah. May I have a motion to – do we have any questions from the board before we do this? All right. Can I get a motion to amend the original order on changing the language to the new language the city is offering on this case? Yes. I'd like to make a motion that the order is amended in the verbiage that you would like. In the verbiage that was presented to the board. In the verbiage that was presented to the board. I would prefer if it be read so that way we have it on record. Okay. If the structure is not in compliance by September 9, 2026, the city asks the board to authorize entrance onto the property to correct the violations. The city will correct the violations by any means necessary to include demolition with any reasonable costs to be applied as liens against the property. After three months from the recovery – I'm sorry. After three months from the recording date of such lien, if the fines and fees remain unpaid, the city's attorney's office is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien using any legal or equitable remedies available under the law. May I have a second, please? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Code Board. Thank you, Inspector Reese. Item 3.8 on our agenda, Case 160-26, Fine Respondents, B-A-W-I Rental, LLC at 1817 Rainbow Drive. In violation of code for exterior surfaces, window maintenance, roof maintenance, and exterior storage, and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Seeing none. Inspector, you have the floor. Good afternoon. Vicki Suttup with the City of Clearwater. Code Inspector, this is for Case 160-26 at 1817 Rainbow Drive. There are four violations here, one for roof maintenance, Code Section 3-1502-D1, D3, D4, and D5, Code Section 3-1502-C3 for door and window maintenance, Code Section 3-1502-B for exterior surfaces, and Code Section 3-1502-G2 for exterior storage. Notice a violation was sent on May 13th of 2026 with a compliance date of June 13th. The certified mail was not signed, so I did post the property on June 25th of 2026. These pictures were taken on 8-6-25. So this property sits on a corner, and it's very large, and there are several buildings on this property. So you'll see different buildings that look different because there are different buildings on this thing. But lots of outdoor storage, exterior surfaces, the soffits falling down. There's holes in the wall. There's holes in the roof. There's a lot of debris and storage. This is the back of one of the properties. This is the front of one of the properties. There's a hole in the wall that they tried to cover up with some wood. A lot of windows are boarded up in the back. A lot of outdoor storage. Duck. There's some more outdoor storage. Part of the roof is falling off on another one of the buildings. Outdoor storage next to the driveway. This is a posting because they didn't receive the green card back. Is this building like a triplex, fourplex, or different buildings? Well, there's a total of five buildings on the property. One is there's like seven units, and then the other ones only have two, and then the last two have. So each building has two to four, except for the first one I believe it has seven. Okay. Thank you. So these pictures were taken yesterday just to show you that everything is still the same. Nothing's been done. There's more storage being put outside, holes still in the wall. Are people living in the properties? They are completely full. Surprising. Sorry, this isn't moving very fast up here. Okay. So compliance can be met for the roof by maintaining the roof in a clean, mildew-free condition and kept free of trash, loose shingles, debris, and other elements, including grass, weeds, and tarps, as well as anything that is not permitted part of the building or a functional element of its mechanical or electrical system. Compliance can be met for the doors and windows by removing all boards and coverings from all doors and windows, ensure all doors and windows are in good repair, including window frames, sills, and panes. Compliance can be met for the exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structural and decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, faded, and peeling paint. And compliance can be met for the outdoor storage by removing all items not intended for outdoors to include equipment, materials, and or furnishings not intended for outdoor use. My recommendation is, for the four violations, requesting compliance on or before 9-26-26 or a fine of $150 per day per violation if compliance is not met. Thank you. Board, do we have questions? Have you spoken with the owner? I did. When I first sent out the notices, it was probably about two months later, he called me and told me that he had hired somebody and that they were going to be starting on the roof the following day. About another month went by and nothing was done. I did reach out to him, and he told me he had hired somebody, gave him the money, but he was having car trouble and couldn't get over there to confirm whether he did or did not do the work, and I have not heard from him since. And that was probably about three months ago. Okay. Point of order in the room, please. Keep your conversations low to a whisper if you would, sir. Thank you. All right. Any other questions from the board? 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 investigation. 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 September 26, 2026. 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, and if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, and settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Item 3.9 on our agenda has been withdrawn. Item 3.10 has been withdrawn. Item 3.11, Case 163-26, fine respondents Frederick Picard at 1032 North Missouri Avenue in violation of code for exterior surfaces and abandoned building. An issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Yes, ma'am. Please come forward. Please give us your name and address in relation to the property. Good afternoon. My name is Priscilla Picard. Close to the microphone, if you will. It's awfully hard to hear. Sorry. My name is Priscilla Picard. I'm the authorized representative for my father, Frederick Picard, the owner of 1032 North Missouri Avenue. Thank you. What we'll do, the way we run our procedure is we want to know who you are and what your relation is to the property. Then we'll hear from the inspector, and then we'll call you back up to give us whatever information you may have. Okay? Thank you. Do you have anything from your dad authorizing you to do this? We want to hand that to Cole. Thank you. Thank you. Inspector Dixon, you have the floor. Good afternoon, Board. Inspector Dixon, co-compliance inspector for the city of Clearwater. Case 163-26 for 1032 North Missouri Avenue. There are two violations at the property, one for exterior surfaces and one for abandoned building. I sent out notice at the end of January with a compliance date of May 1st. I did receive the certified mail receipt back in the office. Just given definition of what the city defines as an abandoned building, it means a building or structure that is deserted by the owner and left unsecured or is not maintained. Evidence of desertion and lack of maintenance shall include, but not be limited to unaddressed code violations, lack of required building permits or certificates of occupancy, lack of business tax receipts, and lack of active utilities. The last active utilities were in 2019, about the time that the property was purchased. In a little background, there was a stop work order issued in February of 2023, and the building department met with the owner, and nothing was done to fix the stop work order. The stop work order was reissued a year later. At the time, the housing inspector brought it to the code board in June of 2024, and then the F-day of the noncompliance was accepted in November of 2024, so fines have been going for a couple of years now. A permit was submitted in April of 2025 to address the stop work order, but it was basically just a shell of a permit. None of the conditions have been met, and it's basically sat idle since then. I issued my notices and asked for compliance in May, and I told them at the time, you know, let's start with the stop work order. It doesn't make much sense to take care of the exterior until you finish the inside. You know, I can push pause on my cases, but I haven't seen any movement on the permit, so that's why we're here today. Okay. This is the house in January. It's just the house that needs some work. The house is basically in the same condition. They do clean up the yard when I notice something in the yard, something dumped or overgrown. They'll come out and take care of it, but otherwise the building's about in the same condition. So compliance can be met for the exterior by replacing any defective structural and decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, and faded peeling paint. Compliance can be met for the abandoned building by having all code violations addressed, have current utilities turned on, have the structure occupied, or sell the property or demolish the property. I would request compliance on it before October 1, 2026, that the violations continue to exist and post a fine of $150 per day for each day the violations continue to exist. Thank you, Inspector. Mr. Carton, would you like to share with us about all of this? And before you start, our process requires me to ask you if you admit or deny the violation. Do I admit or deny it? Yeah. I admit the violation that was committed because it was active for a very long time, and the building, it seemed like it was abandoned. However, the utility bills were still getting paid because we still had electricity, and we did take further measures like installing cameras to monitor the dumping that was happening in the yard. And we did try to reach out to police officers about it, but we didn't have significant evidence to have anyone do anything about the illegal dumping. Understood. And I'm going to interrupt you if you don't mind, because our next process is to go ahead and make a motion on the admission to get that on the record, and then we'll discuss where we're going forward from there. Okay. Can I get a first motion, please? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. I have a second. Did I hear a second? Yes. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Sorry for the interruption. Please continue. Tell us what the game plan is here and what we plan to do. So ever since we've gone – sorry. So we've had a lot of cleaning up that has been done at the property, and we've secured it after we've had some conversations with Mr. Dixon, who has graciously given us some notices. We did meet with Isidoro and – sorry, let me refer to my notes briefly. And we met with some of the representatives of the city department on July 2nd and with our architect to try to move things forward. They did send us a revised – something revised regarding, like, the plans regarding the trees on the property, so we're working on that. We're actively working towards the permit, so we're expecting to obtain that in the next two months, hopefully. I'm sorry, I'm super nervous. That's all right. It's okay. No worries. I do have some invoices as far as the lawn care and the electricity bill and the utility bill. So we do have utility bills. The building is not abandoned. It's just temporarily vacant until we can renovate it fully. It is still my father and the owner's intention for our family to live there eventually. So we still want to renovate this building and live in it. Okay. May I ask you a question? Are the utilities on now? Yes, they're currently on. The electricity is still on and the Internet is currently on. And as far as the lawn care, it's still ongoing. How about the water? Is the water on? The water is not currently on, no. Okay. And given the amount of work required on this thing, what kind of time frame are you looking for and thinking of in terms of getting this thing, all of the violations corrected? We would like to obtain the permit and corrective violations over the next two months. He is abroad currently, which is why it slowed down the process on certain things. But we are actively communicating with the architectural team to just have whatever needs to be corrected, corrected, and move forward in compliance with the city's requirements. Got you. I'm looking at the city's request for compliance on or before October 1st. We're near the end of August here, so that's five weeks or so from now. And from what I'm hearing from you, you're talking about a couple of months to get a permit. But their standard, the thing they're requesting is compliance. So permit being the only first step of that, then you still have to do all of the work to get into compliance. And so that's why I'm asking you what your best guess is in terms of everything being done. Yeah, being in compliance. You know, I'm assuming you're conversing or you've talked with the inspector and you have some sort of idea of all of the things that need to be corrected. Okay. So what's your best guess in terms of the amount of time it would take to get that done? I think now five months, maybe six months is what we're expecting at. Once we have the permit, we have a lot of things that are already in motion that we just need to get back to. So it could be less, but that would be my best guess as of right now. Questions from the board? Comments? Questions? One of the concerns I would have is the amount of time this has gone on. I mean, I believe this case has been active for quite a while. If I can call Inspector Dixon back up to get a little more clarification on his thoughts. Thank you. I select the date October 1st if nothing happens. I mean, if the permit starts to roll in and work starts to happen, then I don't need to submit an affidavit of noncompliance. I can let the process go through. But if nothing happens, I need to move forward with this case. Okay. But I'm okay with more time to get the permits issued. Understood. From what I hear from the owner's representative, she's talking a couple of months for permit. Would you be comfortable with bumping that October 1st date back a month and we revisit the case to see where we are on permits? And if nothing's been done, if something's being done, then you have that latitude and that judgment? Yeah. If you want to set a compliance date on November 1st to get time for a permit, that's fine. Okay. Any comments from the board about that? I would agree with that. Okay. All right. Fair enough. Well, how does that work for you? It gives you a couple of months plus a week to work on permits and you can be in contact with your inspector and we can move forward from there. Please step up to the mic if you would. Wondering, is the abandoned case, would it remain or would it be withdrawn? That's a conversation for you to have with your inspector. Okay. What we hear now is to make a motion and a ruling on a compliance date and what he brings, what and when he brings anything further to us is his decision. So I would suggest that if you're in communication with Mr. Inspector Dixon here, then things can roll fairly smoothly, I think. Okay. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Any other questions or comments before we make a motion? All right. I have a second motion with a date of November 1st, please. And that's for permits, correct? Well, it says there's what he has there. I guess we're – He'll put in an affidavit of noncompliance if by the time our next meeting comes if it's not permits. I think we're just doing a second motion with a date of November 1st. Yes, it's flexible. Yeah. All right. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before November 1st. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Thank you for coming in today. All right. Moving on, Agenda Item 3.12, Case 164-26, Fine Respondent Samboli, Brunilda Estate at 1033 Mohawk Street in violation of 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? Okay. Thank you. Sir, please step forward and give us your name. Your address is your address. He was sworn in. In relation to the property? He was? I'm not sure if he was. I just wanted to – Sir, were you here when we swore people in? Uh, I got here at, like, 1.31. Okay. Let's get you sworn in just to be safe. If you'll just raise your power from us to tell the truth throughout your entire testimony. Sure. Yeah. Sir, can you give us your name and address in relation to the property? Joseph Zamboli. Okay. The son of Brunilda Zamboli. Okay. Brunilda Zamboli is my mom. I got you. And my mom had passed away in October 2020. Okay. And, sir, I don't want to interrupt you. But normally what we do is find out who you are and what your relation is to the property, and then we're going to hear from the inspector. We'll invite you to come back up and give us whatever data you have to offer. That's enough. Yeah. Just have a seat for now, and then we'll call you back up if that's okay. I'd kind of like to know more about his relationship to the property at this point, his mother's pathway. Is he, like, involved in the estate process or – I think we'll find that out. Okay. Let's just find – I guess, to me, all that would tie into whether or not he was authorized to be speaking. Well, let's find that out and then address the first motion, you know, and then we'll move forward. So, Inspector Dixon, if that's all right with you, we'll have him back up to just establish his qualifications on speaking on the property and make a motion, then we'll have you come back up. Okay. Sir, come back up. We have a couple of questions for you. I think council has a question for you. So your mother unfortunately passed away, correct? Sure. So who owns the property at this time? Is it going through the estate? Well, I have legal documents here drawn up from law office of Barrett & Barrett years ago. It's a will stating that I am the inheritor of the property and all of that. Is the property going through the probate process right now? Well, you know what? I had called the court of clerks here in the city of Pittsburgh, and I asked if I would be able to do this on my own to come in with the paperwork I have showing that the inheritance, the will, and everything else. And she had told me that you would need to have a lawyer to do this process. I thought I could do it on my own. You mean to do the probate process that we're talking about? Yeah. That's what I was told, that I needed to have a representative to do this for me. I couldn't just come in, fill out forms, and stand before the judge and prove with the will and all of that that I can go through the probate process. Okay, so right now there's no probate case that's been started. This is just kind of outstanding at the moment. Yes. Those are my questions. It's up to you what you'd like to do. I just wanted to go. I mean, the lawyer gave me a price of $3,000, and my condition, you know, I had a file. Unfortunately, I had a file for disability years ago, forced to, because I have some medical issues, which I, you know, physical ailments that I'm living with. Understood. I think, you know. So the affordability of $3,000 to pay the lawyer I was trying to get to is just not attainable right now. Understood. For our purposes, to make sure everything is done properly and that we handle our business correctly, one of the first things we have to do is establish whether or not you're in a position that you can speak on behalf of the property legally, and I think that's what council here is trying to establish. And we don't want to shut you out of the process, but on the same token, we have to make sure that everything is done properly so that if any decisions are made or any rulings are made, that those are valid, whether they're a help or a continuance or whatever those things are. Okay? Okay? And so, while I don't want to be discourteous to you, I think that we have to establish whether or not you're in a position where we should have you speak or not. Yeah. And from what I'm understanding, if probate's not completed and he's not an authorized representative, that it would be improper for us to hear from him? Is that – am I stating that correctly? That's my thoughts, but I would defer to your counsel on this issue. Well, you could at least hear from him from a standpoint as a witness, maybe not as representative, but he may be able to add something for your deliberation process. So you could still accept that information. All right. So pursuant to that, we would not be doing a first motion because he is not in a position. Well, you would be doing a first motion because he's not a representative. He can, however, give you information as to whether – I mean, so you need to hear from the inspector as to the violation. You determine whether there's a violation. You then hear from him for purposes of making your decision as to time periods and those things. I should have clarified my question. And what I'm saying is that we're not going to ask him to admit or deny because he's not a representative. That is correct. You are correct. Very good. Thank you. That's what I wanted to establish. Thank you. Well, you know, I give you the legal – I'm going to – Legal language and all that. I'm going to choose my words a little more carefully next time. I think once you hear from him, that's a witness. That's fine. And our typical procedure is that we're going to hear from you after the inspector gives us data so that you can respond to everything he gives us. Okay. Okay. And in regards to what you're discussing, I did bring in the will and testimony and everything else for you to see. You can even make copies of it and have it in your files if this helps you to have me as a speaker on this property. I think for our purpose, we want to look at the case and see what, you know, what the inspector has to offer. Okay. And then we'll invite you back up to offer us any data you care to share. Thank you. All right, Inspector Dixon, you have the floor. All right. It's case 164-26 for 1033 Mohawk Street. There's one violation at the property for exterior surfaces. The notice of violation was posted and mailed in July of last year. Some progress was being made, so I didn't move the case any further. Then it kind of stalls and comes back, and so I'll show you the case. So here's the house in 2023 is when I first made contact with Joseph, and he indicated he wanted to do it on his own. I tried to get him some volunteer help, but he wanted to do it himself. So here's in 2025, he started addressing some of the surface conditions on the house and filling in some holes and things like that. This is just the side of the house at that time. And then a couple months later, he got some paint on there, got some new wood up by the fascia there, not much on this side yet. And then in July of this year, work kind of seemed to stall again, so I submitted the code board packet. And then a little bit later on, some more work has been done, I assume after receipt of the code board hearing. And this is it today. He's just got a couple more pieces of wood. It looks like he's about done with the paint. And so compliance can be met for the exterior surface by replacing any defective structural or decorative elements of any building wall. Sure, all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, and faded and peeling paint. And I'm requesting compliance honored before October 1, 2026, that the violation continues to exist and pose a fine of $150 per day. For each day, the violation continues to exist. Thank you. Any questions for the inspector? Can I ask you a question? Oh, I'm sorry. It looks like all that's left for him to do is that board at the top. Yeah, a little bit on the fascia and maybe a little bit of touch-up paint. That's good to hear. Yeah, clothes. Yeah. All right. Any other questions for the inspector? Sir, would you like to come back up and what would you like to tell us about how much more you need or what you have in plans for finishing the work there? Well, that latest picture that you just seen on the Mohawk side, it's a corner house. That's all been complete two days ago. So the whole wall, everything is finished. Just the boarding up on the fascia board is the only thing. I'm not a carpenter. I was a learn-as-you-do thing I was doing. So being that the other corners were at a 45-degree angle, I had everything, and I just couldn't get that experience of a carpenter to get that 45. So I'm just going to go with the 90 and be done with it, get the board up, and make you guys happy. I didn't really think it was such a big, serious thing here, but I feel like I'm being condemned or something. Well, we're not here to condemn you. You know, what we're out to do is help get compliance and understand what the situation is. The inspector is asking for this to be completed in about five weeks, by October 1st. Is that something you can do? Yeah, I believe so. I thought it was done, you know, the last paperwork that they gave me. Actually, Greg was passing one day, and I was on my way to do some errands, and this is when he had given me a call, and I was wondering how he got my phone number. And he left a message, and I called him back, and I told him what my situation was, and I think they left the card on the doorknob or something. And so he had passed, and we had spoken, and I had told him, yeah, I was trying to do this, and I showed him what I was stuck with before I could get to the work that needed to be done. And he was very nice. He told me, you know, if you want, we can get painters. I can get you, you know, painters then. And I had told him I had already bought the paint, and I think I can do it myself. Good. And I didn't want to have somebody just come and put a Band-Aid on a wound and just move on. I wanted to, you know, really take things, you know, fix things, because, like, the sills were splitting. Got you. You know, it takes a little bit of time. It's just not paint. It's a lot of patching work. It's a lot of shoring up things. Sure. The house was built in 1958. Okay. So the question the board has for you is, do you think you can get this done in five weeks? Yeah. Okay. There's not much to go. All right. Very good. Fair enough. Well, then that's what we'll do. Okay. We appreciate you coming in today. Thanks for the data. Okay. And as far as maybe I can get this out about probate, is there a way that I can get this done on my own? Is there any help provided for somebody in my situation? That's beyond our scope. You can always talk with the inspector if he knows some folks or has offered some suggestions. Okay. Then that's a good conversation to have with Inspector Dixon. Okay. Our job here today is to look at it and see what's reasonable in terms of it to get the work done. Okay. Great. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Did we do a first motion on this case? No. 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? So, I 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 October 1st. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 a day per day per violation. For each day, each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Just be in touch with your inspector. Let him know what you're doing. There you go. Next on our agenda is item 3.13, case 165-26, fine respondents George Moretti, Jr. and Cynthia Moretti, in 1992 Byram Drive, in violation of code for exterior storage, and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? No. No? Board, this one's just going to be a declaration of violation. If you came into compliance, I'm just requesting a declaration of violation. Well, all right. May I have a declaration of violation, please? I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in Mr. David. In this case, the violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be opposed. 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. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. That's easy. Agenda Item 3.14, Case 166-26, fine respondents Amy Whitman, Daniel Roop, and Jennifer Roop at 1771 Linwood Circle in violation of code for roof 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? Ma'am, please come forward. Okay. Okay, ma'am. Please give us your name and address and your relation to the property. Hi, I'm Amy Whitman, 1771 Linwood Circle, Clearwater. I'm the homeowner or one of the homeowners. Very good. Please form an in, ma'am. Yes. All right. Ms. Whitman, do you admit or deny the violation? Excuse me, board, before we start, we're seeking a declaration of violation on this case. On this case? Yeah. All right. Very good. Well, it sounds to me like based on the last case we saw that, correct me if I'm wrong, Inspector Kasman, that she's now in compliance? Yes, the city's just seeking a declaration of violation. I just didn't want to get in the way of letting someone speak is all I'm sorry. I got you. All right. Well, we would love to hear from you. But at this point, the inspector tells us that you're in compliance. Oh, well. And so all we're going to do is make a motion that you were in violation, that there's no fine, but if it occurs again, then it'll get back on his radar again. Okay. Okay? Am I good? Yes, you're good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate you coming in today. All right. Have a good day. Thank you. Inspector Kasman. Inspector Kasman? This is a question I have, and maybe because I don't, I'm not as familiar with this board as you all, but a declaration of violation would say that she's in violation of the code, right? So. Was. Was. So should she have an opportunity to admit or deny that, or is that not relevant? Just thinking out loud. I mean, only if she wants to contest it. Come on now. Thank you. Glad you stayed. You almost made it. I'm sorry. I didn't catch all of that. Well, basically, we were about to make a motion on the fact that you're in violation, but what we would like to know is, do you admit the violation or do you deny it? I guess I would admit it because I am going through a claim with my insurance, so that's why it was up there. Okay. So, yeah. You're just basically admitting to us then that the property was in violation. Okay. Yes, I admit. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for helping us make that clarification. Yeah. All right. I didn't mean to hold us up there. I was just thinking, well, if they get a declaration of violation, that means if this comes back again, then that means we would seek higher fines potentially, right? So there is something at stake, at least. I got a good point. Well, and it's. Very good point. That's an excellent point to keep us on the straight and narrow. Yeah. I'm just thinking I'm new here. I'm just. No, it's a good point. My mind does. I was glad you dropped that at. Yeah. You're not new. You were here before. I know, but that was a while back. I'm rusty. All right. May I get a declaration of violation on this case, 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, please? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much for it. Thank you, Inspector. Thank you, Inspector. Looking at our agenda, I'm seeing the remaining cases on this page. 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, and 3.20 are either withdrawn or continued. So rather than go through the litany of them, we'll move on to the next page on our agenda. Item 3.21 has been continued to November. Item 3.22, Case 174-26, Fine Respondents 888 Business LLC at 802 Court Street. In violation of code for permits, admission order of the 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, Code Board. I'm Inspector Cat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is going to be for 802 Court Street, Case 174-26. We have one violation here for permits required, and this is going to be specifically for the storefront sign that was installed. I had multiple notice violations that were sent out. First was January 23, 2026, and the final March 24, 2026. I do have certified mail signed on February 9, 2026. This is the property in question. It is in reference to that storefront Clearwater Beach Fitness sign that is in black right here. This is a Google photo from February of 2025, and this is currently what is there now. I have had contact with the property owner who advised me he would speak with his tenant to get a permit pulled. I also spoke with the tenant, who was under the impression that because they're foamed that they do not require a permit. So I do think he will start the process, but just in the event that nothing happens, I am just asking for the order. So this was the old sign. The property owner thought that he had a permit sign, but that was from 2023, which is completed, and that is the plans on that permit. So that is for the old sign, not for the new. So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit with inspections. The city is requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before September 26, 2026, and the 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? Yes. So they had the old sign put up, and then they took that down and replaced it? Yes. So I have educated the tenant that even if it was the old sign and it came down, it requires a new permit. It's wind issues, and we may have to make sure it's fastened correctly. And you've spoken with the owner? I have spoken with the owner. That was in – I spoke with him March 3rd of 2026, and I haven't heard from him again. You said March? Correct. Okay. No further communication? No, sir. Any other questions? Yeah, I have a question, Kent, just for my own information. If the sign stays there and there's a new owner, if the new RO sign and a new owner comes in, does he have to resubmit a permit for the same sign? As long as the sign is exactly the same, no. Same? Okay. Well, thank you. You're welcome. But if it's a different business and they change a panel with a different design or whatever, then you're talking a new permit. Yeah, correct. Yeah, okay. All right. Any other questions? All right. Can I get a first declaration, please? First violation? First violation. First violation. Thank you. I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. I have a second. Motion, please. I'm sorry. Can you go back? I don't know what the date is that you want. Oh, September 26th. September 26th? Yes. Okay. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before September 26th. 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 Reese. Agenda item 3.23 on our agenda has been withdrawn. 3.24 has been withdrawn. Next case, agenda item 3.25, case 177-26. Find respondents Kristen Marie Perez at 312 David Avenue in violation of code for residential grass parking. An issue in order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector, you have the floor. Code and compliance inspector for the city of Clearwater, Andrew Hobbs, case number 177-26, 312 David Avenue. This is for code section 3-1407A5 for residential parking. Notice of violation mailed 513 with a compliance date of 617. I got the assigned green card back on 518. Two cars on the opposite side of the driveway near the right side of the property line in the yard. This is kind of two pictures right next to each other, but you can see the two vehicles. Go back on the timeline. It's April, May, June, and then I was just in the neighborhood in June. They went from two vehicles to one vehicle, but this one vehicle is still not, it's out of code. And then this was yesterday, so still one vehicle on the opposite side of the property. Oh, I meant to take that out. Compliance can be met by parking a single vehicle adjacent and parallel to the driveway or parking all vehicles in the driveway or the street. Request compliance date on or before 9-8-26 or a fine of $150 per day each day the violation exists. Questions? Questions? All right. I have a first motion, please. I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to 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 on or before September 8th. 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, board. Moving on, other board action is the affidavits of compliance, and I believe historically we have taken all of these as a group. Yes. And offered and agreed to a motion to encompass all of these. May I have a motion to accept all of the affidavits on our agenda here, affidavits of compliance? I put it in a motion to accept all affidavits of compliance at one time. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? And carries. It covers all of our affidavits of compliance. Next item we have on our agenda is a case 34-26, continued from July 22, 2026. Accept the affidavits of noncompliance for respondent's William Black at 2390 Willow Tree Trail for unsafe building. I believe Mr. Black is here today. Inspector Larson. Inspector Reed. It's actually me taking over. Inspector Larson. The property is not in compliance. I can go over what's occurring if you'd like since Mr. Black is here, but I have spoken with him, and he's in full understanding of how the city's going to move forward. But if you'd like to hear it, I'm happy to present it. I ask for a bit of guidance here because I know this is an affidavit of noncompliance, and yet I see Mr. Black is here. And I would like to give him the courtesy of at least speaking to us. Mr. Black, please come forward. Good day, Mr. Black. Hello. We've seen you before, but can you just state your name and address for us, please? Yeah, William Black, 2390 Willow Tree Trail. Okay. So how's it going on the house? There was a, the tally was taken in, and the city had agreed to accept the county coming up on their decision and wait for them. Okay. Pardon? I could elaborate if you'd like. Yes, please. I didn't have a seat. Thank you, Mr. Black. Inspector Reed, what would you like to do? You're welcome. What would you like to share with us? Okay. So I'm not going to do this the traditional way since it's already, everybody knows this property for 2390 Willow Tree. And this was the old inspection photos. So I am going to skip more towards the end. And he had gotten a permit for demo of the walls to have the, assess the damage inside. That permit has since expired. That permit has since expired. He did complete a temporary electrical, so that was completed, and he has a, I'm sorry, a permit for the shingle re-roofing. And so this here is the expired permit for the drywall. It has not had inspections with the city. And this is for the roof. There's not much that has been added to this permit. This was, and because of the roof, I wanted to go there and take pictures to see if anything was in progress. It is clear that it has not begun yet. And this was the release for the Duke meter and the power. That is completed. Now this is where we are today. Pinellas County Recovers has submitted a letter to us. However, the verbiage in this letter is stating that he, it appears he is eligible for the program. We don't know that for certain, so we don't want to go off of potential. So we are asking the city to accept the affidavit of noncompliance in the event that we would have to move forward if he is not eligible. And that is what I explained to Mr. Black. The city is going to be more than happy to work with him if he is deemed eligible for the program, and they restore. Obviously, the city has no interest in moving forward with his property in that case. But there are, as you recall, other neighboring properties that are very concerned about this, continuing to be a nuisance. So that is why we feel that is the best way to move forward. But we will work with him if he gets accepted. Okay. Excellent. I think, how was it in my book? Questions? I thought we already put it in noncompliance before, and there is an order at the credit. So why is it that? I think I don't recall the specifics of this case. I think we gave him six months to do some stuff, and now we must be at the six-month point, and we're not really moving forward. And I believe that's why the city would be asking for an affidavit of noncompliance, because that time is run, which would kind of follow our standard line. However, I do recognize the fact that – sorry, do you want to say something? That is correct, because the city was never asking for fines, so the fines aren't going to run. It's just going to give us the ability to go enter the property and do what's necessary to get in compliance. By what date, Ms. Reiss? Yes. By what date? I'm going to wait and see what happens with Pinellas County Recovers. Do we typically know how long they take to approve these applications? I do not. They are a separate entity. I did call to inquire, but I have not received a call back. I only have this letter, which doesn't state too much of concrete answers on if he's accepted or not. It's very clear that it appears that he's eligible, but we don't know for certain. Thank you. So until we determine whether or not he's eligible, there is really no timeline. First, they have to qualify him for the program, and at that point, and from an inspector's point of view or from your point of view, you're willing to give him some time to see how that goes. And if nothing occurs, then you have the ability to act. That is correct. But if something does occur, you're willing to give him the opportunity to move forward? Correct. We just use the same dates that we've been using. Say again? So we just use the same dates that we've been using. Well, I think that I would like to know, you're basically just looking for an affidavit of noncompliance. So there's no real date on it. We're just giving an affidavit of noncompliance, which gives the city what they need in case things are going forward. Okay. We're in limbo. Yeah. Can I get a motion for an affidavit of noncompliance on this case? I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that imposes fines in the 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. Can I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? I believe that it's a wrong affidavit to accept. Oh, I'm sorry. It says affidavit of noncompliance. Are you looking for a... Well, it's an affidavit of noncompliance, but our order was not for fines originally. It was for us to go into the property. Basically the same situation as San Remo. The motion only accepts the affidavit of noncompliance. Whatever you all are doing with it, it's up to you. All right. So the motion is good as stated. All right. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Thank you for coming, Mr. Black. Good luck to you, sir. All right. Moving on to agenda item 5.4. Case 51-26, accept the affidavits of noncompliance for respondents Deltway and Holmes at 3087 Cherry Lane for development code violation. We have someone here to speak on this? Yes. Okay. I'd ask the board to recognize this is an affidavit of noncompliance. This is not a typical new business, but is a courtesy to the gentleman here. Sir, what is your name and address in relation to the property? My name is Deltwayne Holmes, 3087 Cherry Lane. Okay. So you're the property owner? Yes. Okay. Good. So the city's asking us to accept an affidavit of noncompliance, and since you're here, we'll give you a few minutes to just tell us. So I purchased a house in September, and I wanted to get some shade on the roof because the house is developed to have a roof terrace on the top. So I hired a company to come in and put the pergolas up. I remember that. And they didn't go through any of the city processes to get permitting for it, so then they found me in violation. So I came here the last time, and I asked for three months to be able to get some sort of, you know, get them taken down or get the original people that put them up there to get them taken down. And I, when I presented the information that I got from here to them, they ghosted me. So, and I spent about $35,000 for the pergolas. And I called around for different contractors to see if they would take it down. They said they wouldn't touch it. I need to get in contact with the original people to take it down. So I contacted the inspector who was on the case prior, and I told him, I said, I need more time. He said, well, you're going to go back in front of the council in a month or so, but you're going to need a demolition permit. I didn't know I needed a demolition permit for something that wasn't required to be on the roof anyway. So I finally got a contractor to present the information for the demolition permit, and he stated that they needed blueprints. So now I've got to go and get blueprints for the roof that is in violation for the pergolas, but I can barbecue up there, you know. So it's just difficult for me to get anybody because it's five stories. It's on top of a five story. My house is five stories, and it requires a crane because it took a crane to get everything up there. So nobody wants to take it down because they don't want responsibilities, power lines behind and on the side of the house. So I'm stuck in a quagmire where I'm trying to either get more time to get somebody to get it down because I can't take it down with a hammer. You know, I have to, you know, it's going to take somebody actually going up there, and you can't just tear it down. It has to be disassembled. So I got the permitting stuff in. They said I needed a blueprint, and right now I'm just trying to find a contractor, somebody that can actually come and disassemble everything and take them down. I'm not trying to not be in compliance with anything. I just need time to get somebody to take the responsibility to get them down because it's on the top of a building. I'm going to go on my house. It's a house. I understand it's a mess, and I sympathize with you. Counsel, I understand what the property owner is telling us, but if I understand our process correctly, we're not in a position to – I'm going to have to defer to Matt on this because my firm represents Mr. Holmes in another matter. Okay. Well, based on my experience on the board here, it's my understanding that the initial phases of our process when we're doing new business and we give an owner a certain amount of time, that that's the time we give him, and we're beyond that point now, and we're simply here to rule on an affidavit noncompliance. Is he in compliance, is he not, that any rulings regarding extended time would lie with either the indulgence or whatever with the inspector, you know, what they decide to bring. But the inspector's brought us an affidavit of the noncompliance, and our job today is to rule on whether or not he's in compliance. And if the inspector's brought an affidavit of the noncompliance, they're asking us to make a ruling on the fact that he's not in compliance, and that's the simplicity of it, that the board isn't necessarily in a position of giving him more time, that that is done, that is handled by whether or not the inspector brings the, requests the affidavit of the noncompliance. He's got an opportunity there to not bring it, to give the owner more time, but we're not necessarily in that position ourselves. I have a question, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Holmes, my recollection of your case when you were here before, your purglars exceed the height level. Yes, the house was, I guess it was when the guy built it, it was grandfather to 30 feet, and I had no clue. I just wanted the house. So when I hired the company to put the purglars up, if they would have came and took the proper steps, we wouldn't be here. I wouldn't have lost my money and wouldn't be in here right now trying to get them taken down, which is going to be a loss. So I've talked to some other people that deal with this type of stuff, and they've been trying to find some loopholes to where I can keep them up there. I'm still fighting for that, but at the same time, I have to be in compliance with what's here now. So if that happens before this, they're going to have to come down. Yeah, that's why, actually, because chloride height regulation is very strange. Yes, yes. Have you been in common with Ms. – like, have you been talking with her? No, I never – there was another inspector. I talk to him periodically. I've never met her before. No, I'm not on this case, but – Oh. Yeah, this is – it's a zoning violation, not a permit violation. Oh, so there's somebody else, but you have been in touch with that person? There was another – The previous inspector was John Stevens. He no longer works for the city, so I've taken over as far as seeing this through to the end. Oh, okay. But I have not had any interaction with him until before the code board meeting. Okay, so is there any path forward to give him more time to do what he needs to do? Okay, so I gave this some thought. I've spoken with my client, and this is where my thoughts are currently. I will caution you off the cuff here. So I believe in this situation there are three different things you can do. Number one, you can accept it as the city is requesting. Number two, we could probably continue this, as I understand that we have continued these type of situations in the past to a later date. Or number three, you could choose not to accept it. However, if you choose not to accept it, I'm not entirely sure what happens next in that process, and I wouldn't be able to give you an answer on that particularly. So if we choose to continue it, then how much time would that be until the next meeting? Well, it's up to us. You could determine when you would like to continue it. It's whatever we decide, whether it's three days or three years or somewhere in between. What was the original order we issued? Three months, I think. Yeah, three months to get in compliance. I understand the permitting process, and I understand that the pickle you're in and not being familiar with that process and learning as you go, and now you've found out, number one, you need architectural drawings. Number two, you need a contractor that's willing to take it down. All right, a permit, and then you have to have a contractor that's willing to take it down. Those are the three things that you've got to have before you can comply. Plus the blueprint. The question is, if the board decided to extend time, how much time do you think it's going to take you to do this? Again, I know you're in an educational phase, but I'm looking for a best guess. Because before I thought that was enough time, and it wasn't even a drop in the bucket. So I'm saying six months, six months or 13 years. But I'm saying it's hard to say because I can walk out of here and a guy can do it. But once we get the permit, he can do it next week. But then I can be calling these different contractors, and it's because of the hype. And that is why they didn't want the responsibility. So it could take six months or better. Got you. I'm not, I can't, you know, I wish I could pinpoint it, but it's not, I'm not in control over that part of it. I get it. I'm not giving you advice on this case, but in general I can tell you that you can set it for status. You've done that before. Right. That's what I was. You know, because if six months appears to be too long a time, that would be one of the other things. I mean, obviously, whoever the, Ms. Green can tell you what's going on. Keep it updated. So could we do three months, and then at three months he comes back and get another update and do another continuance? I don't want to do that, but I don't want to keep it going on forever, but I think we should give him more time. Well, I think that in this case, correct me if I'm mistaken, but we're looking for an update of noncompliance. And so I don't know if we're in a position to ask for an update, but we could certainly, if the board decided to, if the board was in agreement, we could extend it or just continue it for 60 or 90 days, and we should know by that point in time whether or not things are moving along in terms of drawings, permits, et cetera, et cetera. That's the dad's report in 90 days. 90 days. And the affidavit would be in front of you again, and then you would be faced with the same decision you have now of what you want to do. Right. But we still have the same choices then that we have today, but what we'd be looking for there is okay and update what's going on. Yeah. Do we know for sure our drawings are required? Say again? Are drawings really required for it? Yes. You know, for any demo permit. I mean, I don't want to speak on behalf of the building department and either Mr. Reed or Mr. Garriott, but any time you're going to demolish an existing structure, from my understanding, why don't we just ask Mr. Garriott and get it straight from the top. Yeah, you would. Straight from the horse's mouth. I wasn't going to say that. I knew you were. I knew you were. I knew you were. I knew you were. Hi, I'm Kevin Garriott with the building department. So when I hear you talking about demolitions, and I don't know the exact things he's got up there. I've seen some pictures of it from when I was here before. But it's not going to take a whole complex set of drawings. Like if you're building a new structure, you need to then come up with engineering that's going to tie it down and meet the wind loading and have Florida product approval and stuff like that. Demo is a little bit easier. He could show a plan of some sort and maybe even an aerial from Google Sky or Earth. Yeah, thank you. And tell us what's going on out, what's going to happen, do a work write-up, a project description, and it's not terribly bad. And something like that can be turned around in a few days, really, once it's submitted. He wouldn't need a blueprint. Not like you're thinking of a blueprint where you've got a floor plan and sections and stuff like that. If you were putting it up new, then he wouldn't need that. But to take it down is much, much simpler. Now, his part to find the contractor and a crane and all of that, I can't speak to that because I know a lot of contractors are busy. A lot of architects are busy. But it doesn't take a complex set of drawings to get a demolition permit, and that's what this would be, a demolition permit, bringing the house back to, like, pre-Gazabo installation. Mr. Holmes, anything I could explain further on that? Just out of curiosity, since he's up here, the owner? Yes, sir. Could he do an owner-contractor thing so that he can just do the Google Earth and submit it and get the permit and then go find a train? He can. If he's the owner of the property, it's residential. He can do an owner-builder. That begs another question on my part for clarification. Is this a single-family dwelling, or is it multifamily? Okay, good. That answers that. Just for the board's reps, it makes a difference on whether or not you can pull an owner-builder permit on the type of building it is. So that's an option for you, Mr. Holmes. You probably didn't know about what Ms. Garrett was saying. You wouldn't necessarily need a blueprint. Just Google Ariel for a permit. Yes. Yeah, she told me that I could probably just write, draw something up, and submit it. So that's what I will do. The building department can help guide you through that process and tell you whether you've submitted this, maybe what more details you need on that, so that they can get you a permit that you can get approved and move forward. Once he has the permit, how long does he have to comply with the permit so it doesn't expire as a six months? Once you get a permit, it is good for, I think it's 12 months now. State legislature got involved and changed the six months it was in the building code to 12 months. So I like it. The problem is getting the permit because that can take a while. Which is, I'm sorry? The problem is getting the permit. Oh, we're here to help on that. I mean, I'm starting it right now. It's just been an hour of experience to hear about permits. Well, I'm sure Mr. Garrett would tell us that demo permits and your smaller permits like that generally move through the system much quicker. Right, yeah. I mean, it's almost like a walkthrough, kind of one day to three days, we'd have it back out on the street. All right, so now it's down to the board from the chairman's position. I like the idea of continuing it for 60 or 90 days and getting an update, like just continuing the case. Any discussion about that or opposing viewpoints? Well, I think based off of this conversation, if he does the demo permit himself, and it doesn't take very long, I don't think he needs 90 days for that. If we give him an extra 30 days and then he gets that done, he has 12 months to find a contractor and get it done. True enough that I might offer that based on this type of this thing, it's not like the little store around the corner here that they demoed in a few days. This is five-story and there's power lines. He's going to have to find – it's going to take more of a qualified specialty contractor to operate at that level and invoke the crane and use of the crane and crane operator and everything else that goes with it. So I would be inclined to lean in the direction of like 90 days, continue 90 days, and if nothing's occurred by then, then, you know, then we're free to pull the trigger or recognize what he's done either way. Yeah. Because the contractor crane could be booked for a while, so that could take time. That happened to put getting him up there. Yeah. All right. Everybody ready to move forward with the – I just want to – you should stay in contact with your inspector. Oh, yes. No, not your – He's giving me a bar, so I'll be in contact with her definitely. And the building department. Yes. To make sure they move your stuff along quickly. Yes, sir. Is that something you guys are okay with, us extending it, and then is that – or are you guys – Ultimately, it's the board's decision whether you want to continue it or not. We bring the act of noncompliance forward because we gave – you know, you found that in violation, you gave the compliance date. On that compliance date, they weren't in compliance. However, if the board grants them more time, I'll continue to work with the property owner and we'll get something happening. Okay, thanks. Good. Can I get a motion to continue this case for – did you say 90 days? Motion to continue this case for 90 days, Mr. Chairman. I have a second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you, sir, for coming today. We hope that helps. We appreciate your efforts and your explanation. Big winner. All right. Moving on. Agenda item 5.5, case 57-26. Accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondent Martinez Assets, LLC at 1533 Drew Street for permits. Is there any – Inspector Reese? Hello, board. This property is not in compliance. 5.5? Did I get that correct? Yeah. I'm sorry. I was busy. I was not in compliance. Very good. May I have a motion, please? I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Item agenda item 5.6, case 62-26. Accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondent Petrillo, Phillip Benjamin, trustee, and BG Land Trust at 202 North Glenwood Avenue for permits, fence. Inspector Reese? Hello, board. This is not in compliance, as well as item number 5.7, which is the same property, that neither violations are in compliance. Being that these are separate cases, I'm assuming we would do separate affidavits on these cases. You've submitted them as separate. Separate motions, yes. Correct? I'm sorry? Separate motions. Yes. All right. Can I get a motion on case 5.6, please? 62-26, please. I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next case, same address. Yes, the inspector has stated that this also, it's the same property, is not in compliance on this case, case 63-26. May I have a motion, please? I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Number 5.8 on our agenda has been withdrawn. Number 5.9, case 96-26, accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondent, Arca Holmes, LLC at 1465 San Juan Court for window maintenance and exterior surfaces. Inspector Sudeth? Just wanted to let you know it's still in violation. Okay. If there are no questions, I'll entertain a motion. I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? He carries. Agenda item 5.10 has been withdrawn, 5.11 has been withdrawn, and we're moving on to nuisance abatement lien filings. So, agenda item 6.1, case 201-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Alyssa Bonin and Anne Fouk Nguyen at 1110 South Corona Avenue for lot clearing, and issue an order of the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Dr. Suddath? Vicki Suddath, City of Clearwater. This is for case 201-26 for 110 South Corona Avenue. There's one violation here for a lot clearing, code section 3-1503-B7-B8-B10-B5A. Notice the violation was posted and mailed on July 24th with a compliance date of August 3rd. Certified mail was not received, so I posted it on 724. This is a copy of the posting, a copy of the front yard. This was on 817-5, not there this morning, and it's still in violation. The compliance can be met for the lot clearing by clearing all trash, debris, and overgrowth. From the property, requesting it five days after the board for a nurse's order. Questions? No. I have a motion, please. I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property, to abate and maintain the nuisance, and charge the respondent with 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 proclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Item 6.2 on the agenda, Case 202-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Anna Torres-Pavon. At 1450 Franklin Street, for lot clearing, an issue in order with compliance deadline, and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Suddiff? Vicki Suddiff of the City of Clearwater. This is Case 202-26 for 1450 Franklin Street, nuisance abatement case. There's one violation here for Code Section 3-1503B7B8B10B5A. The notice of violation was posted and mailed on August 4th, 2026, with a compliance date of 8-14-2026. This is a copy of the posting on 8-4 property. This is also a corner property. It was at one time an apartment complex, but it's been vacant for quite some time now. Just another view of the property. This was yesterday. Still nothing's been done. Went by there this morning. Compliance can be met for the lock clearing by clearing all trash, debris, and overgrowth from the property. Requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. 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. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property, to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with a reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property. If cost, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, if the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. For our secretary, the next case, 203-26, has been withdrawn. Correct. Next case, item agenda 6.4, case 204-26. Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Jeffrey Krapchak and Melanie Reyes Krapchak at 1680 Sunset Point Road for a lock clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Kasman. All right. Good afternoon, board. Daniel Kasman, code enforcement inspector for the city of Clearwater. This is for case number 204-26, 1680 Sunset Point Road, nuisance abatement. One violation for code section 3-1503, B7, and B5A for lock clearing. Now, these are the dates of notice of violation went out with compliance date, and after the posting was done the same date. Here's a picture of the posting of the property. This is 1680 Sunset Point Road. It had some overgrowth, and in the driveway, there was a large pile of pine tree leavings and just a pile of junk and garbage. It was overgrown at the time as well. It went back after a compliance date. It looks like the grass has been cut, but they are still not addressing a large pile of debris in the driveway there. Also, a shopping cart showed up. And then on the 26th, which was today, the pile is still there. Yeah, a shopping cart remains. Compliance meant for a lock clearing by mowing the lawn and removing all the trash and debris from the grounds, and I'm requesting compliance on it before five days from the date the board renders its order. All right. Thank you, Inspector. Questions from the board? May I have a motion, please? I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violation within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry into the property, to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the 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, please? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right. Thank you very much, Board. Thank you, Inspector. Item 6.5, Case 205-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Luis Oscar Enrique Dolores and Fernando Juan Dolores at 1540 Scranton Avenue for an operative vehicle and issue an order with a compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Touré. Yes, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Board. Yousef Touré, Court Compliance Inspector for the City of Clay Order, bringing in today 1540 Scranton Avenue for a nuisance abatement. There's one violation of this property. Court section violated was 3-1506B6 for inoperable vehicles. I went to the property on March 13, 2026. I went to the property on March 13, 2026, and there was a – it's not showing on the side. You need some help. Yes. Just click. You do the walking right. Okay. All right. Notice of violation was sent out on 6-4-2026. Compliance date was for 7-3-2026. The certified mail was unclaimed. And I went back to the property on July 20th, 2026, and posted it with an affidavit of postings. The court section violated was 3-1506B6 for inoperable vehicles. This is going bad. I'm going bad with you. Excuse me. You're good. I went to the property on March 13, 2026, and found the forerunner has an expired tag. And there was also another vehicle that also had no plate on. That's this vehicle in question. I went back to July 20th, 2026, and the vehicles posted with an affidavit of postings. And I went back there and realized that one of the vehicles was gone. That's the Toyota forerunner. But what he did was he moved it to the back of the house. And that was 8-18-2026. And I went back on the street behind, which is murdered. That's when I saw where he hid the vehicle. Very sneaky. Right. So this is this morning, August 26, 2026. I went back. He still has the vehicle there. He just hid it at the house. Can you bring his pictures next week to see what he's done now? Then, yeah, this was also taken this morning. Still have both vehicles there. They're still inoperable. Compliance can be met for both inoperable vehicles by providing current license plates, have the vehicles in operable conditions, or remove them from the property for proper storage. Recommendation for case 205-26 for inoperable vehicles. Requesting compliance five days after the board readiness is on. I have a question just out of curiosity. And your pictures over time show more than one vehicle. Sometimes you have the one, and at times you have the others. If you show up there and you've got five different vehicles on that lot when you show up to perform your task, or whoever the vendor is that the city hires, if you have five inoperable vehicles there, are they authorized to take all of them? I've never seen where our rulings are tied to specific vehicles. It's more of a general violation inoperable vehicles. I would assume that when they show up, if they're inoperable vehicles on site, they're taken, regardless of the number. Do you know? Correct. We're seeking an order to remove inoperable vehicles on the property. We're not necessarily asking for specific vehicles. The evidence we're showing is specific ones. But if we went out there and there were, say, three more that we weren't aware of, then we would potentially tow those as well. Their author has taken them. I was just curious. Okay. All right. Thank you, Inspector. Are there other violations on the property? There looked like a few problems that were not just the vehicles. Well, when I went in this morning, the grass was overgrown. Yeah. But I couldn't just address it. Okay. I'll address it another time. We might see impact. Yeah. Any questions? No. Any other questions? No. All right. I have a moment, so let's get this over. I was 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 charge the respondent with the reasonable cost, which will become a lien on that property. If cost, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All in favor. All opposed? I'm carries. Thank you, Inspector. Item 6.6, Case 206-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for Respondent King-Jewan Estate at 1250 Howard Street for lot clearing and issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Jensen. Good afternoon. Dave Jensen, Code Inspector with the City of Clearwater. This is Case 206-26 for 1250 Howard. Where is it? Sorry, I don't have my glasses so I can give you a minute. My apologies. This is one violation for 3503-B7 for overgrowth. Date of the violation, compliance date, and the mail which was returned on claim. It is in the state, according to the property appraiser. There are postings in the windows for a company that is overseeing the property. I have been in contact with them. They did state they were going to get someone to take care of the property. However, as of this morning, it hasn't been done. That's the posting. This is the property. It's a corner lot. This is the south side, same side. That stuff's about three days after the date. It was supposed to be 8-14. When I was out there on the 17th, it still wasn't taken care of. And this is this morning. So it hasn't been maintained. I haven't heard anything back from the company about getting that taken care of. So compliance will be met by mowing, edging, and trimming the overgrowth on the property. Asking for compliance five days after the board's order. Questions from the board? All right. I have a motion, please. I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry into the property, and evade and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property. If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Number 6.7 on our agenda has been withdrawn. Number 6.8, case 208-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Sutton, Robert, William, trustee at 970 Mandalay for lot clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Mayor Maddox? Inspector Kevin Maddox for the city of Clearwater. Code compliance inspector. There we go. This is for case number 208-26, 970 Mandalay Avenue for a nuisance abatement. One violation for lot clearing overgrowth, overgrowth right away, and accumulation of debris and trash. Notice the violation was mailed in, posted on this date, compliance date, on the 13th of August. Green card was not received back. That's why it was posted. Here are the pictures of the posting. This is pictures of the yard, well over a foot high. And this is on August 7th. On the 13th, it still remained just a little bit taller, and this morning, yet a little bit taller. Compliance can be met for cutting all grass, vegetation, including the curb line, sidewalk, continuing to maintain it, removing all trash and debris, and continuing to keep it clean. Requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. Very good. Any questions from the board? All right. I have a motion, please. I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property, to abate and maintain the nuisance, and charge the respondent with 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, Inspector. Item 6.9 on our agenda. Case 209-26. Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondent Christos Boltsalas and Dana Boltsalas at 860 Harbor Isle for lot clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Mr. Maddox? All right. Just let this catch up to me. Here we go. Kevin Maddox, code compliance inspector, case number 209-26 for 860 Harbor Island. This is for one violation of lot clearing overgrowth right away, accumulation of debris and trash. Notice the violation was mailed and posted on the 10th of August, compliance date 17th of August, and the green card was not received back, which is why it was posted. Here it shows posted on the 10th, long grass. You can see it's halfway up the windows. On the 18th, it remained the same a little bit longer, and the 26th this morning remained the same and still even longer. Compliance can be met by cutting all grass vegetation, including the curb line sidewalk, and continuing to maintain it, removing all trash, and the rain continuing to keep it clean, requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. Thank you, sir. Questions from the board? This rain's creating a lot of work for you, isn't it? It's making that grass grow. All right. May I have a motion, please? I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance, and charge the respondent with a reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property. If cost lines 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. Agenda item 6.10, case 210-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents, Pantazes, Constantinos, and Dioncia, Reputable Trust. I'm sorry? That's pretty good. That's a pretty good pronunciation. It was. You're doing well. Thank you. At 331 Harbor Passage for lot clearing, an issue in order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Maddox again. Kevin Maddox, Code Compliance Inspector, case number 210-26 for 331 Harbor Passage. This is for overgrowth, overgrowth right away, and accumulation of trash and debris. Notice the violation was sent out on the 14th of August, but also posted on the same day. Compliance was on the 19th of August. The green card was not received back. Just for a background, this gentleman has been in and out of the hospital. I did hear from him today. It's probably going to be completely cleaned up today, but just for your information, it's still moving forward until it does. This is the date that it was posted on the property. The grass is very long on all sides. It's a corner property. This is on the 18th, still yet longer, and as we get to the 26th, this was this morning. You can see right here where they started to mow the grass, but they haven't quite gotten into it. I'm not sure who's doing it, but he's having to get contractors to do it. I think he's going to be going into a home soon. Compliance can be met for lot clearing by cutting all grass and vegetation, including the curb line sidewalk, and continuing to maintain it, removing all trash and debris, and continuing to keep it clean. And requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. All right. Questions from the board? May I have a motion, please? I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with 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 propose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. For Madam Secretary's request, agenda item 6.11, case 211-26 has been withdrawn. The next case, agenda item 6.12 has been withdrawn. Next case is number 6.13 on our agenda, case 213-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for Robert Binder and Doris Binder at 36 Midway Isle. For lot clearing, initial order with compliance deadline, and authorize the city to mediate the violation. If compliance is not met, Inspector Maddox. Kevin Maddox, co-compliance inspector, case number 213-26 for 36 Midway Island, nuisance abatement. One violation for lot clearing, overgrowth, overgrowth right away, and accumulation of debris and trash. Notice of violation was mailed and posted on the same day, the 14th of August. Compliance date, 19th of August. Green card was not received back. This is the posting of the day of the posting. The grass is at least waist high in many areas, sometimes chest high. On the 18th, it continued to grow longer, and this morning it was still in the same condition. Compliance can be met for lot clearing by cutting all grass, vegetation, including the curb line, sidewalk, and continuing to maintain it, removing all trash and debris, and continuing to keep it clean. Requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. Questions from the board? May I have a motion, please? I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable action, including an entry into the property to evade and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property. If cost, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, settle, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Item 6.14 on our agenda has been withdrawn. Item 6.15 has been withdrawn. Next case, 6.16 on our agenda, case 216-26. Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents and our Quality Homes LLC at 1356 Overly Street for lock clearing and issue an order with a compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Dixon. Inspector Dixon, City of Clearwater Co. Compliance Office, case 216-26 for 1356 Overly Street. There's one violation here for overgrowth and accumulation of debris. Notice the violation was posted in mail at the beginning of the month. They were given 10 days to come into compliance. This is the property on the day of posting. Here is this morning. No change except. And there's debris as well? Well, I haven't got to the back of the property, but the neighbor tells me there's a bunch of building materials. They just remodeled it, and then I haven't seen anybody there since for a while. Compliance can be met by clearing all overgrowth and debris from the property. And I request compliance five days after the board renders its order. Questions from the board? All right. First, may I have a motion, please? I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violation 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 cost, which will become a lien on the property. If cost fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Item 6.7 on our agenda. 6.17, Case 217-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents' arrest, ELLC, at 1234 Eldridge Street for an operative vehicle, and issue an order with a compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Dixon. Inspector Dixon, City Clearwater Code Compliance Office, Case 217-26 for 1234 Eldridge Street. There's one violation for an inoperable vehicle. Notice the violation was posted in mail on July 14th. There, again, 10 days to come into compliance. At the time, there were two vans parked at the property with expired tags. The white van disappeared. The blue van remained. The tag is about a year old. This is this morning. The van's, this van is still there. It still has an expired tag. I tried to call Mold Zero, and I went on their website and put in a request if they wanted their van back. I was going to have to tow it, but no response. The home's vacant. We're in the middle of foreclosure on the property, so I guess maybe it was dumped. I'm not sure. The compliance can be met for the inoperable vehicle by removing the vehicle from the property or make repairs to the vehicle's roadworthy as well as display a current license plate that's assigned to the vehicle. Request compliance five days after the board renders this order. Questions from the board? No. May I have a motion, please? I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of the 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 that 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 for three months, after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, and settle such lien. Second. I have a second. Is it under a second? Yes. All right. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. That completes our agenda for today, and unless there's something from somebody else, we are adjourned. Okay, thank you.