2 o'clock and we're going to get started. Welcome to the April meeting of the Code Enforcement Board of the City of Dunedin. I would ask that everybody silence their digital devices. Put them on vibrate if you expect a call. If you've not been here before, we do make an audio recording of our meetings. When you do come and speak, please state your name for the record so the transcribers know who's speaking and also do what I'm doing. Keep your mouth close to the microphone so the recording devices can pick up what you're saying clearly.
Okay, I'm going to go ahead and Jamie Ballard, I'm going to read the statement of purpose. Before proceeding, I will set forth the purpose of this board. The Code Enforcement Board is charged with conducting hearings to determine whether a violation of the codes and ordinances of the City of Dunedin has occurred. In order to meet the obligation, all parties or the representative will be allowed the opportunity to be heard on matters relevant to the alleged violation. All witnesses offering testimony or presenting evidence will be required to swear or affirm that the testimony they offer is the truth. The City, through its staff, will present its evidence of the alleged violation. After the City has completed its presentation, the respondent shall be afforded the opportunity to present its evidence. The respondent may be represented by an attorney or some other representative. If the respondent presents photographs or written materials as evidence, they'll be submitted to the board secretary for inclusion in the case. Any members of the board, the person presenting the city's case, or the city attorney may question any witnesses before the board. The respondent and, I'm sorry, the respondent or his or her representative shall also be permitted to question any of the witnesses before the board and present brief opening and closing statements if so desired. The board will then openly deliberate considering only the evidence presented, the law, and common knowledge. By motion duly made and seconded, discussed and approved by at least four members of the board, an order will be issued. The order will contain findings of fact, conclusions of law, affirmative action to be taken. The order will be forwarded to the respondent by certified mail. We will now continue with our
hearings. Thank you, Jamie. The first item on the agenda is an opportunity for the public to address the board, but only on matters that are not on the agenda. Is there anyone here who has something to share with the board that is not on the agenda? No. We'll move forward. The first item on the agenda is a consent agenda, the approval of the minutes to our last monthly meeting on March 3rd. Members of the board had an opportunity to review them, and do they have any questions, edits, or comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I motion to pass. Sweetser? We need a
second. Lisa Hunt second. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr.
Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Alexander? Aye. Joe Stone? Aye. The motion passes. The next item on our agenda will be the swearing in. Anyone who is going to be providing testimony, this would include city staff members as well as any respondents who are here with regard to a case on our agenda. If so, please stand, raise your right hand. Thank you. The next item on the agenda would be affidavits of compliance. I see that the city has one.
Who is speaking to that? Good afternoon. I'm Michelle Gilbert, City of Dunedin Co-Compliance Inspector, testifying a reference to Case 25-2068, property located at 620 Dexter Drive in Dunedin, Florida, 34698. February 3rd, 2026 hearing. The board ordered a correction of the violation by February 24th of 2026, where a fine of $250 per day per violation shall be imposed. I inspected and checked the system for a permit for this property on February 24th of 2026, and found the violation was corrected. I'm submitting an affidavit of compliance to the board for the
board's approval. Thank you. Would someone care to make a motion to accept the affidavit?
Jamie Ballard, I move to accept the affidavit. Thank you. A second? Second. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Gillette? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Alexander? Aye.
Chair Stone? Aye. Motion passes, and the affidavit of compliance has been accepted. We have one new matter, or one matter of old business, that being case number 25-1955, City of Dunedin v. Julian Phyllis Williams, who is speaking to that.
I'm Michelle Gilbert, City of Dunedin Co-Compliance Inspector, testifying in reference to case 25-1955. Property located at 50 Square Court in Dunedin, Florida, 34698. At February 3rd, 2026 hearing, the board ordered a correction of the violation by February 23rd, 2026, or a fine of $250 a day per day shall be imposed. I inspected the property and checked with utility billing on February 26th, 2026 to find that the violation remains. I'm submitting an affidavit of noncompliance
to the board for the board's approval. And you said that the board issued an order assessing a fine of $250 per day commencing on the 23rd of February, 2026. Is that correct?
Well, it would start the 24th, right? 224th. February 24th, it would start, yeah. And that would be capping at 20 days, of course.
And it would be capped at 20 days? Yes, sir. Have you had any further communication with the owners of the property?
Uh, yes, I have. If you remember, this is the property that there's no electricity, there's no plumbing. Um, the daughter was, uh, away for a while. She came back. The mother refuses to help her anymore. Um, she still, the daughter still resides there and she hasn't had electricity or, or water from, for years. Um, now the water, uh, she right now is at, uh, a balance owing of $722.92. My understanding with the electrical, I can't be certain of a, of a price that is owed there, but it's in thousands of dollars. Um, and the last call that I received from her, uh, she was, um, going on and on about wanting her mother signed off the property because she wants to sign her son onto it. And that's the last correspondence that I had with her. Like she doesn't realize that it's her mom's house. She's on the property appraiser, but it's just because her mother signed her onto it for no other reason. So.
Right. So to refresh the memories of any board members, this is a mother and daughter who jointly own a property. The daughter has a history of substance abuse issues and has also been, uh, letting friends, uh, stay on the property. Is there anyone squatting on the property now?
No. No. Okay. She's actually been maintaining the property. There is an issue with bees at the, honey bees at the front right now. There's a hive, an active hive. We're, I'm trying to get somebody there to, um, relocate the hive. Um, I just found a, a person that does that. So I'll be reaching out to, um, Phyllis this week, uh, to see if she'll allow them to go over there. She'd actually have to be there present at the same time. Um, because, um, there was, I think it was a couple of weeks ago, the fire department was called there. They were, they had an active fire in the backyard. Um, she was out there doing who knows what was told in the past by me, she cannot have any type of fire pit or anything along that lines back there. Cause she has no way to extinguish said fire. Uh, the fire department had a long talk with her. She would not come out of the house. Um, they tried to do a, um, you know, they had somebody there to, to assess her. Um, at that time she was as a, you know, she was a bright alert. There was nothing that they could see that would have anything to do with Baker acting in whatsoever. Um, but at this point, I mean, with the cold snap that we had back a bit ago, I think that's the reason why she was doing the fire
in the backyard. So. All right. So what's before the board now is a failure to evade in a violation by the deadline previously set by the board. The board agreed to set a fine of $250 per day, um, capped at 20 days, which would be $5,000. Correct. That's accurate. And is that what you were requesting of, do you have a recommendation or a request? That's my recommendation. Yes. Okay.
For accepting the affidavit of noncompliance. Yes. Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Jamie Ballard.
I believe this is the correct motion, but please stop me if it's not. Number four. That is correct. Okay. I move in case number two, five dash one, nine five, five for the property located at 50 square court to find the respondents, Julie and Phyllis Williams did not correct the violations of code section 501.2 plumbing facilities and fixtures, general discussion on or before the compliance date of February 24th, 2026, and to accept the affidavit of noncompliance based on the gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations committed by the violator. This is determined to be a severe violation and the fine of $250 is imposed from the date of February 24th, 2026 until compliance is met. The respondent is ordered to contact code compliance for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance
with this order. Thank you. Do I have a second? Alexander, second. Thank you. Sorry. We need to amend the compliance date to February 23rd, and then the fine starts on February 24th. So just that
small. Okay. Jamie Ballard. I will amend my motion to begin the fine from February 23rd, 2026.
No. So fine begins February 24th, but the compliance date 23rd. Compliance date of February 23rd,
2026. The fine will begin February 24th, 2026. Thank you. Thank you. I second that. Thank you. Roll call,
please. Thank you. Mr. Gillette. Aye. Ms. Hunt. Aye. Ms. Ballard. Aye. Mr. Sweetser. Aye. Mr. Alexander. Aye.
Chair Stone. Aye. And the motion passes. I believe that's the only old business here before us today, so we'll move on to item number five on the agenda. New business. The first case that comes up is case number 25-2117, City of Dunedin versus Sharon. Is it Hubner or Hubner? Hubner, thank you. Concerning the property at 1518 Fairway Drive in Dunedin. Ms. Laurel, are you going to be presenting? Yes. Thank you.
Good afternoon, board members. My name is Rachel Laurel, co-compliance inspector for the city of Dunedin. I will be presenting a PowerPoint presentation for the property located at 1518 Fairway Drive. This is in reference to case number 25-2117. The respondent is Sean C. Hubner. He resides at 1518 Fairway Drive. The zoning is single-family home in the R-60 zoning district. Number of violations are two. First one is of DCO section 34-1 paren A, environment offensive accumulation. Subsection A, it shall be unlawful for any person to accumulate, leave, dump, or store openly on any premises with a residential zoning classification, any building materials, automobile tires, inoperable or derelict vehicles, and any and all other articles of personal property which may be seen from the public right-of-ways or abutting properties for a period greater than three days unless the storage of such articles on residential premises is specifically allowed under other provisions of this code. This is the second violation of DCO section 34-32, premises to be kept clean of offensive accumulation. It shall be unlawful for the occupant or owner of any house, yard, store, lot, or parcel of land to refuse to keep the same clean or to permit any trash weeds or any offensive materials of any kind to accumulate in or upon such premises, and such accumulation shall be deemed a public nuisance. The notice of violation was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner on December 11, 2025, with a compliance date of December 29, 2025. Certified mail for the notice of violation for the owner was returned to the office on January 8, 2026 at 3 20 p.m. A notice of hearing was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner on March 25, 2026, and the certified mail for the notice of hearing is still attempting delivery as of April 6, 2026 at 103 p.m. This is when I first saw the violation on December 2nd. It shows an accumulation of personal items, tarps, coolers, wood, gas cans, a ladder up on his driveway. Here's another angle showing hose, ladder, wood, and tires. It looks like a faucet, pieces of wood. He's up by his front door, accumulation of trash, boxes. A door hanger was left on December 2nd. I did not receive any communication from the owner, and the violation still existed. So on December 11, 2025, an affidavit of posting and notice of violation was posted to the front door. Here's a close-up picture. Here is the banner page and the return mail from the post office, and here's the pictures on my posting for the notice of violation showing additional items. There's something underneath that tarp, a box. It looks like a car jack, tires, still the faucet, boxes, all sorts of construction debris up in front of the garage door. There's other construction debris. By the front door is just trash, boxes. A re-inspection was done on February 17th to show that majority of the items were still present on the driveway. Here's the tires, gas can. In front of the garage door is a lawnmower I believe he was working on. There's another picture of the driveway, a car battery, hoses, some wooden stand. Here is the posting of, an affidavit of posting and notice of hearing posted to the front door on March 25th. Here's a close-up picture of that notice of hearing. Here's the banner page and the certified mail showing it's still attempting a delivery as of yesterday at 1 0 3 p.m. And here are the pictures taking on March 25th, the day of the posting and notice of hearing, still showing the same items, tarps, gas cans, coolers, wood, some wood stand. There's pavers there also, tires. There really was no change in the condition of the property. Here's up in front of the garage door, buckets, sheets of wood I believe that is, and loose trash. This is a re-inspection yesterday. I'm still showing a large amount of the items still remain on the driveway. The pavers, the wood, pipes, tires, gas cans, the battery, the wood, everything still looks like it's in the same location from when I first opened my case on December 2nd. In front of the garage, the buckets, and here's by the front door, the trash is still up at the front door. I'll leave it to the board to deliberate. Okay, before we hear from
the respondent, I have a question for counsel. There are two other cases regarding the same property. Is it your preference that we deal with each one separately? Yes, given that it's a different
case number, we're going to do separate motions for each. I would prefer it. Okay, so sir, would you
like to come up and respond? And again, keep your mouth close to the microphone, and for the record,
state your name and address, please. My name is Sean Huebner at 1518 Fairway Drive, Dunedin, Florida, 34698. The photo evidence is accurate, and I understand that I am out of compliance. I'm requesting that you allow me a couple more weeks to do a dump trailer haul and to get the vines and everything cleaned up. I understand I'm an embarrassment to my neighbors, and I wish I need to apologize to them. I don't have a great excuse. Do you have any questions for me? Are you saying that two weeks will be sufficient to remove these? I believe so. I mean, I work full-time over 40 hours a week, so the weekends are my dedicated time to be able to work on the property. So that would be two weekends,
this weekend and the following weekend. Okay, and you have not signed for some of the mail items?
I guess not. I didn't notice that I had gotten these registered mail. I thought they normally
would tape them to the door. They have in the past. Okay, customarily they need to be signed for
to acknowledge receipt. Okay. But you're here... Again, I leave at seven, and I usually don't get back until six or seven in the evening. Okay. Well, you're here, which is a good thing. Are you clear on what needs to be done to evade the violations? Yeah, I work in construction. I have obviously gotten the bad habit of bringing leftover materials that were at one point of value and just hanging on to them too long. Now most of the stuff is of little to no value and is junk, so I just need to throw it out and get everything cleaned up. And again, I apologize to the board and my neighbors.
Okay. Do other board members have questions for the respondent? You have to speak into the mic.
Is that an HOA? And if it is, does it matter? I'm just curious. Do you live where there's an HOA?
I believe the HOA expired at one point in the past. I was just curious if... Okay. Because it looked to
me like it was in Fairway Estates. Correct. Okay. I just didn't know if that made a difference. Okay.
Thank you. Any other questions from board members for the respondent? No? I'll entertain a motion just with respect to the first case on the agenda, which bears the docket number 25-2117.
Jamie Ballard? I move in case number 25-2117 for the property located at 1518 Fairway Drive.
I... I'm sorry. Does the board have a recommendation? I mean, does the city have a recommendation? The respondent has already acknowledged the accuracy of the photos and says two weeks will be sufficient. Does the city have a recommendation that differs from that? I apologize. That's okay. It's my fault. Okay. So, you want to continue? Okay. Okay. And find...
Excuse me. The respondent, Sean Huebner, in violation of the City of Dunedin Codes DCO-SEC 34-1A and DCO-SEC 34-32. And order the respondent, Sean Huebner, to come into compliance by April 21st, 2026. Yes. If not in compliance, a fine of $250 will be imposed until compliance is met per day. The respondent is ordered to contact the code compliance officer for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Thank you. Do we have a second? Lisa Hunt, second.
Thank you. Roll call, please. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Alexander? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye.
The motion passes and an order will issue. The next case... Sir, you can have a seat. The next case on the agenda is case number 25-2172, City of Dunedin v. Sean Huebner. Again, concerning the property at 1518 Fairway Drive. Who is presenting for the city? I am. Ms. Laurel? Good afternoon,
Board. My name is Rachel Laurel, City of Co-Compliance Inspector for the City of Dunedin. I'll be shown a PowerPoint presentation for the property located at 1518 Fairway Drive, case number 25-2172. The respondent is Sean C. Hubner. His address is 1518 Fairway Drive. Zoning is single-family home in the R-60 zoning district. Number of violations is one of DCO Section 34-31, environment, excessive growth of weeds, grasses, or turf. It shall be unlawful for any person who shall own, control, or occupy any lot, parcel of land, or premises in city to allow grasses, weeds, grasses, or turf to grow upon such lot, parcel of land, or premises to a height exceeding 10 inches. A notice of violation was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner on December 11, 2025, with a compliance date of December 29, 2025. Certified mail for the notice of violation for the owner was returned to the office on January 8, 2026, at 3 20 p.m. A notice of hearing was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner on March 25, 2026. The certified mail for the notice of hearing for the owner is still attempting, attempting delivery as of yesterday, April 6, 2026, at 1 0 3 p.m. I first opened my case on December 2, 2025. You can see this is the front yard. The grass is grass weeds turf is overgrown, and it is grown into the street. Here is a picture of the driveway. You can see that the property is overgrown, and a door hanger was left on December 2. I received no confirmation or communication from the owner, so a notice of violation. An affidavit of posting was posted to the front door on December 11, 2025. Here's a close-up picture of the affidavit of posting notice of violation. Here's the banner page and the confirmation that the notice was sent back to the office. This is the pictures on December 11, the day that I posted my notice of violation. You can see the overgrowth in the front yard encroaching into the street. You can see the neighbor to the left has been maintaining their property. Their grass is maintained and short in comparison to this property. Here's the driveway. You can see especially to the left there's overgrowth as well as the right going up to the drive going up the driveway. Here's the right-of-way section with the grass exceeding the 10 inches and growing into the street. This is a re-inspection after my notice of violation on December 30th. The grass is still overgrown and still growing into the street. Here is also on December 30th the driveway and you can see the overgrowth. Re-inspection on January 27th. You can see in comparison to the neighbor how much taller the grass is at this location. Here's a picture of the front of the house with with the overgrowth and growing into the street. Re-inspection February 17th 2026 is still the same condition still overgrown and the grass grown into the street. Front of the house also on this day also on this day overgrown and grown into the street. Here's a side angle showing the driveway. You can see the overgrowth adjacent to the driveway. Re-inspection on March 2nd. You can still you can see the property is still overgrown and the grass is still growing in the street. March 2nd 2026. Here's the same picture of the driveway. The grass is still overgrown. The property is still overgrown. March 18th 2026. You can see the front of the the property is still overgrown. March 18th is the driveway. You can see there's still overgrowth and the grass is grown in the street even on the right-of-way by the utility pole. March 25th 2026. Affidavit of posting. Notice of today's hearing. Here's a close-up picture to the front door. Banner page and the delivery confirmation showing that they're still attempting delivery as of yesterday. Here's the pictures of the day of the posting of the notice of hearing. On March 25th 2026 the grass is still overgrown. You can see to the left the neighbor who's been maintaining the the grass as well as edging along the street in comparison to his to this property being overgrown. Here's a picture of the driveway. You can see the overgrowth underneath the the tree there and here's a picture of the other side of the driveway the right-of-way and the grass grown in the street. Here's a picture as of yesterday and you can see the property is still overgrown and the grass is still grown in the street. Here's a picture of the front of the house. Grass is grown in the street alongside of the driveway. It's the vegetation. The grass is still overgrown. The property is still overgrown. And here's the other side of the driveway showing the property overgrown. And here is the right-of-way section with the grass grown in the street and the property is
overgrown. Now I'll leave it to the board to deliberate. Do any members of the board have questions for Inspector Laurel before we move on to the respondent? No? No questions? Sir, do you want to come on up please?
My name is Sean Huebner. I live at 1518 Fairway Drive, Venetian, Florida 34698. In regards to the the same situation, I asked again for the same conditions as the other violation. If you could give me two weeks to trim up the yard, trim the bushes, remove the weed or the vines and weeds, I would appreciate it. Again, I don't have any evidence to refute,
but that's not the case. So two weeks you think again is sufficient? Yeah. Any members of the board have questions for the respondent? Yeah, sweet sir. Do you have the equipment to... I've acquired a new
lawnmower, well a new to me lawnmower, and I can borrow the the edgers and weed trimmers to to get it back into condition. Okay. I do have hand tools as well for trimming of the shrubbery out front that's
gotten very tall. Any uh thank you. Any other board members have questions? If not? Alexander,
I just have a question. So the you've been getting the notices for a bit now, and here you are, and I did get that you apologize and whatnot, but is there a reason that it's taken some months to... Well,
I did have the lawns. My lawnmower, I was attempting to repair it. It had a fuel leak and which I fixed,
and then I think there's more... I mean, there's multiple... I know we're almost supposed to talk about one particular case, but there's multiple things going on here, and there's been some months where you've been being contacted and clearly doing nothing. So I'm just wondering, now you need two weeks, but... I understand. Yes, it... That's a lot. There's no other... There's no other disability or no other situation that that was preventing you from doing it until now? Physical disabilities,
no. I'm... I'm not sure what my regard for apathy comes from. Um, just... Okay. Okay. Embarrassed, and it's obviously this has gone long enough, and it needs to change, obviously, and now that's why I'm here today is to answer to you. Okay, well... Okay. I mean, I appreciate Dunedin. I think it's a great community, and I'm sorry to be a blight on it. Hopefully, uh, I can correct my actions going forward. Well,
we appreciate your coming here today. Does the city have a recommendation in this case?
Yes. Recommendation for case number 25-2172, with one violation of DCO section 34-31, environment, excessive growth of weeds, grasses, or turf, requesting compliance on or before April 17th, 2026, 10 days from today's board hearing for the owner to mow and clear the property and maintain on a regular basis. Or, given the severity of the violation is minor, I am requesting a fine in the amount of 150 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Thank you. Um, I'll entertain a
motion from a board member. Lisa Hunt. Is it number one? Excuse me, sweet sir. Can I add one thing? Since we, he agreed to a date for the accumulation of the construction materials and all that, you mentioned two weeks, was it? The 26th, am I correct? 21st. Pardon? 21st. I would think it makes sense to coordinate those two dates, um, together. I mean, I know there's separate cases, but I'm saying he needs help. He's had plenty of time. I'd have this kind of coincide because there's going to be a lot of stuff that's going to be thrown out part of this lawn and debris and bushes and everything else. At the same time, there's a lot of things to be thrown out. So, I'm assuming, I hope you get a 30-yard dumpster, okay? Yeah. You're not going to, you need a big one, 20 maybe, but 30-yard roll-off dumpster in your driveway, and then you can clean up everything. So, that's just my injection. Okay.
So, um, Lisa, would you like to amend the compliance date to the 21st so that all of the motions are
in sync? 21st. Do you want me to go back and reread the first? No, you simply can just state your amendment. Just state it. Yeah. I move in case 25-2172, City v. Huebner, Sean, for the property located at 1518 Fairway Drive, find the respondent, Sean Huebner, in violation of the City of Dunedin Code Section 30. Wait, nope, I went down one too many. Section 34-31. Do I need to add the other one
too now, or no? So, he has to bring it into compliance by April 21st. Right, right. No,
I was asking, do I add the, do I go ahead and say the other code number now, or no? No. Okay. No. Okay. Okay. To come into compliance by April 21st, 2026, before last. Then you can just skip the next part
and go, if not in compliance. Yeah, you can just keep going to the next sentence. Okay. If not in
compliance. Yeah. Got it. If not in compliance, a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until compliance is met. The respondent is ordered to contact the Code Compliance Office for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Okay. Thank you. I'll entertain a second. Jamie
Ballard, I'll second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Thank you. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Alexander? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. The motion passes, and an order will issue. Thank you, sir. You can have a seat, but don't go anywhere. We have one more case. So, the third case we have against this property is case number 26-161, the City of Dunedin v. Sean Huebner, also concerning the property located at 1518 Fairway Drive. Ms. Laurel, are you also presenting
on this? Yes. Rachel Laurel, City of Dunedin, Co-Compliance Inspector. The City wishes to withdraw
this case at this time. They will not proceed with this case. Okay. There's no board action. Wow. Yeah. Necessated for that. Yeah. Sir, we can just move forward with our next item
on the agenda. Okay. Sir, you're free to go. You're welcome to stay. But, Mr. Huebner, we're all set. The next case is 26-68, the City of Dunedin v. 2243 Harborview Trust. Laura Lyons being the trustee concerning the property located at 2243 Harborview Drive. Who is presenting
for the City? I am. You have the floor. I'm trying to find my arrow. Well, before you begin,
is there anyone in the audience on this case? No respondent? Okay. No. Rachel Laurel, Co-Compliance
Inspector for the City of Dunedin. I'll be showing a PowerPoint presentation for the property located 2243 Harborview Drive. Case number 26-68. City's requesting a declaration of violation. Respondent is 2243 Harborview Trust. Laura Lyons as a trustee. The address is 2243 Harborview Drive. Zoning single-family home in the R-60 zoning district. Number of violations is one of IPMC 302.8 motor vehicles. Except as provided for in other regulations, no inoperative or unlicensed motor vehicle shall be kept, parked, kept, or stored on any premise. And no vehicle shall at any time be in a state of major disassembly, disrepair, or in the process of being stripped or dismantled. Painting of vehicles is prohibited unless conducted inside an approved spray booth. Notice of violation was posted to the property, City Hall, and send certified mail to the owner on February 3rd, 2026, with the compliance date of February 13th, 2026. Certified mail for the notice of violation to the owner was returned to the office March 2nd, 2026 at 3.38 p.m. Notice of hearing was posted to the property, City Hall, sent certified mail to the owner on March 25th, 2026. Certified mail for the notice of hearing is still attempting delivery as of yesterday, April 6th, 2026 at 1.03 p.m. My case was open January 23rd, 2026. You can see a red SUV on the driveway. Upon walking up to the front door to leave a door hanger, I noticed the vehicle does not have a current tag. Door hanger was left. I received no communication from the property owner. So, an affidavit of posting, notice of violation was posted to the front door February 3rd, 2026. Here's the close-up picture of the affidavit of posting, notice of violation. Here is the banner page and the USPS printout showing that the notice was sent back to the office on March 2nd, 2026. This is the day that I posted the notice of violation. You can see the vehicle does not have current tag. Re-inspection after the posting of the notice of violation, February 17th, shows that the vehicle still does not have a current tag. A re-inspection was on March 23rd and the vehicle still did not have current tag. So, an affidavit of posting and notice of hearing was posted to the front door March 25th, 2026. Here's the close-up picture of the affidavit of posting, notice of hearing. The banner page in the USPS certified mail delivery confirmation showing that it is still attempting to be delivered. And here are the pictures that are taken on the day of the posting of the notice of hearing, showing that the vehicle still does not have a current tag. On April 2nd, I received a call from Anita, who is a relative of the property owner, who told me that the vehicle now has a current tag, which was confirmed. The tag does go back to the vehicle. And this picture was taken April 6th. Here's a close-up picture of the tag, the current tag. Now, I'll leave it to the board to deliver it. I think it's 27. It was registered April 2nd. Oh, the date on the picture? Off of the tag, it was at 27. So, it's April at 27, because it was just registered April 2nd. The same day that Anita called me. Right. Is it? I'm just saying that
the license plate tag, the date on the license plate, I can't see, is not, isn't current. Yeah,
I see 10, 27. Sweet sir, was it, obviously it was, that tag matches the registration to that particular
Ford? Yes, we ran that this morning. It goes back to that vehicle. And it was just registered April 4th of this year, the same day that Anita called me, which was last Thursday. So, it was just registered last Thursday. I can't make out the sticker. Can you blow it? Can you blow it? I don't know.
Can you blow it? Can you blow it? I don't know. It looks like, yeah. October. Yeah. Yeah. It looks
like October as the date. This is not like a touch screen to worry. Well, I can't. Sorry. I can't. I didn't mean to go out of order there. Okay. Okay. Okay. Sorry. Multiple people are talking.
I'm asking the question up there than on my screen. Multiple people are talking. The month on a sticker has more to do with the birth date of the owner of the vehicle. It's not good for a year from the day you walk in to the tax collector. It's based on the birthday of the registered owner. But you believe
that this sticker is valid? It's current. It's current. As of April 2nd of this year. Okay. Okay.
Thank you. Any other questions? I do. One last question. In earlier photographs, there was the trailer. That had nothing to do with this? The trailer was another case,
and they came into compliance. Okay. Thanks. So they removed the trailer.
Alexander, just a question. How does this come to your attention? Is this because of a complaint
from a neighbor? It was a complaint on the street. I was dealing with unregistered vehicles and construction vehicles, I guess, on the street, across the street from this location. So while I was dealing with other violations across the street, that came to my attention. So they were collateral
damage from your other one. I'm sorry? So it was almost like collateral damage from your other
inspection. Exactly. Gotcha. I wrote up several on that street in that little cul-de-sac.
Lisa Hunt, you said you wrote up several vehicles without registrations on this same street?
Yes. Parked in homes or on the street? On the street. I've had other violations on that street. Okay. That was complaint driven, which brought me there. Okay. So they were kind of lined up on the street directly across from this. Right. So that's what brought my attention to this particular vehicle and the trailer, the trailers also. Thank you. Yes. Any other questions for
Inspector Laurel? No. If not, I believe this comes under a new business first time case comes to the
CEB. Is that correct? That is correct. New business motion two. Can I read in my recommendation? Sure. It's on our screen. Go ahead, please. Okay. Recommendation for case number 26-68. One violation of IPMC 302.8 motor vehicles. The property is currently in compliance. So cities requesting a declaration of violation. Any future violation of the same ordinance within the next five year by the same property owner will be considered a repeat violation and subject up to $500 per day.
Thank you. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion. Let's be motion two. Okay. New businesses. First time cases come to the CEB and an order of violation with compliance haven't been reached. A declaration. Property was found in violation. Passed. The compliance date set by the inspector.
I do. Just flip the page. Sorry. We just, yeah. There you go. Motion two.
Jamie Ballard. Jamie, go ahead. I move in case number. No, that's not correct because the
compliance date was February 13th. Yes. So you would state but has in violation of the code session and did not correct the violation before the compliance date of February 13 but has now come into compliance. As of February 7th. As of today's date. You can just say today's date. Motion number two. Yeah. This one. Motion number two. Right here. Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. Who's who is making this motion? Okay. Walter defers. Okay. Jamie Ballard.
I move in case number 26-68 City versus 2243 Harborview Trust, Lyons, Laura Trustee. For the property located at 2243 Harborview Drive was in violation of the City of Dunedin code section. That was IPMC section 302.8 and did not correct the violation honor before the compliance date of February 13th, 2026 but has come into compliance before the date of this hearing of April 7th, 2026. So no fines are assessed as a first-time violator if the respondent is found in violation of code section IPMC section 302.8 again within five years from the date of this order an immediate fine of up to $500 per day may be imposed. Thank you. A second? Gillette. Second. Thank you. Roll call please.
Mr. Gillette. Aye. Ms. Hunt. Aye. Ms. Ballard. Aye. Mr. Sweetser. Aye. Mr. Alexander. Aye. Chair Stone. Aye.
And the motion passes. I believe that concludes new business. Is that correct? Yes. So we are now up to item number six, other business. Do any members of the board have any comments? No. City Attorney have any comments? No comments. No. City staff have any comments? No, sir. Okay. We have a next meeting date set for May 5th. Is that correct? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn at 2 52 p.m. Lisa Hunt, second. Well, you got to make a motion first. Someone else needs to. I can't make a motion. I'm chair. Motion to adjourn. J.B. Ballard, I'll second. Thank you all. We don't need a roll call. All those in favor? Aye. Bye. Bye. Meeting is adjourned.
Thing is adjourned.