the City of Dunedin has occurred. In order to meet that obligation, all parties or the representatives 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. 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 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, and an order will be issued. The order will contain the findings of fact, conclusions of law, affirmative action to be taken. The order will be forwarded to the respondent by certified mail. We will ask that anybody testifying today to speak clearly into the microphone for efficiency of the transcript, and I'll go ahead and call the meeting to order. It is the Dunedin Code Enforcement Board meeting. It is two o'clock. Today is August 5th, 2025. We do have a quorum, first order of business. Anybody here from the public that is not on the agenda wish to speak to this Board? Okay, hearing none, I'll move to the consent agenda. Approval of draft minutes to Code Enforcement Board meeting of July 1st, 2025. If there are no additions, changes, or corrections, I'll entertain a motion to approve. Anybody want to make that motion? Motion to approve. Dan Bolden. Second, Lisa Hunt. Okay, all in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Okay, testimony oath of staff and public. If you could all please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. I do. Okay, next order of business affidavits of compliance. Good afternoon, board. Julie Phillips, co-compliance supervisor. I'm requesting that you accept the affidavit of compliance for case 24-216, address 1611, Pasadena Drive. This case was brought before the Board on July 2nd, 2024. And the Board ordered a correction date of September 2nd, 2024. And unfortunately, they were fined $250 per day. An inspection was done on July 23rd, 2025. And the property is now in compliance. And I'd like to show you a few slides of that, if I may. Yes, go ahead. This is what the backyard of the location looked like on May 10th, 2024. This is another shot of the backyard on May 10th, 2024. And again, of the debris and the offensive accumulation. And this is what the property looks like now on July 23rd, 2025. It's in compliance. And again, I'm asking you to accept my affidavit of compliance. Board members, if you have any questions. If not, somebody ready to make a motion. We've got a motion. Do I have a second? Dan Bolden. Second. Mr. Gillette. Aye. Mr. Bolduck. Aye. Mr. Walensky. Aye. Ms. Hunt. Aye. Mr. Sweetser. Aye. Mr. Alexander. Aye. Vice Chair Ballard. Aye. Okay, motion carries. All right, on to old business. Am I going? Okay. I'm sorry. Yes. Sorry about that. Good afternoon, Board. My name is Rachel Laurel, City of Dunedin Co-Compliance Inspector, testifying in reference to case number 251267. This is going to be an affidavit of non-compliance and compliance. The property is located at 1120 Idlewild Drive North. The property went before this board for work done to the home without a permit last month. Uh, and at the July 1st hearing, the board for, uh, found the property in violation of Florida building code section 105.1 permit required and ordered that the violation be corrected by July 15th, 2025, or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed. A re-inspection of the property, um, and of our records on July 16th, 2025, found the violation continues to exist. So I completed an affidavit of non-compliance. The permit was applied for on July 18th, 2025. As of today, August 5th, 2025, the permit has been issued. So the violation has been corrected. So I am submitting an affidavit of non-compliance and an affidavit of compliance to the board for the board's approval. Sorry. Was this the one where there was a whole bunch of people testifying against? Yes. This is the one where they gutted the bath two bathrooms in the kitchen for that apartment. I have a question. Sweet, sir. So are you the recommendation for three days? I'm assuming. It's from July 16th to today's date. Oh. So it's 20 days at $250 a day. Okay. So it starts. Okay. Yeah. Cause he had until July 15th and he did not, he applied for the permit on the 18th, but it was not issued until today. Okay. So. Need a motion? Walensky. I'm moving case number 25-1267 for the property located at 1120 Idlewild Drive North to find the respondent Neil and Rosemary Del Torre in repeat violation of the City of Dunedin Code section number 105.1 and is currently, well, no, is currently in compliance. However, the respondent did not go in compliance. And so there will be a $250 per day fee from 716 to today or yesterday, I guess, until such time as the property is brought into compliance, which it is now. The respondent is hereby ordered to correct the code for a reinspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. And that's already been done. So now you want a compliance now? Rachel? Yes. Because we had to do the fine first, right? Well, it was an affidavit of non-compliance and compliance. Right. So motion five is a not in compliance motion. Correct. Which I just did. Correct. And so you want a second motion for the one in compliance. In compliance, yes. This is for only one violation, correct? Yes. They're in compliance as of today's date. As of today. As of 8.5. But they weren't in compliance as of July 15th, which is the date on the order. They had until, yes, July 15th. So July 16th, they were not in compliance. That's when fines started. It was July 16th. And they came into compliance today. Okay. So they are fines outstanding for those, for those two weeks, right? Correct. Right. Around two week period till today. 20 days. And you re-inspected the property today? Today. And that was, so you have both affidavits? Yes. So we do an affidavit of non-compliance, which is what the board member did. And now we're going to accept the affidavit of compliance. Correct. Okay. With the fine amount. Do you have the total fine amount? $5,000. $5,000. $5,000, yes. Okay. Perfect. Okay. So do you want these as separate motions then? Yeah. So we need a second. Yeah. We need a second on Mr. Walensky's motion. Second. Lisa Hunt. Okay. Mr. Gillette? Yes. So Vice Chair, you would say you have a second now, and then we call for a vote. Recognize your second. No, Lisa. Lisa. Okay. So we have a second. Okay. So now we're voting. Just aye. Aye. Okay. Thank you. All right. Mr. Bolduck? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Alexander? Aye. Vice Chair Ballard? Aye. Okay. Now I'll accept the motion for the affidavit of compliance. Lisa Hunt. I move in case 25-1267, City v. Neal and Rosemarie de la Torra for the property located at 1120 Idlewild Drive North to find the respondent, Neal and Rosemarie de la Torra in compliance for correcting the violations and to accept the affidavit of compliance. Dan Bolduck second. Okay. Mr. Gillette? Mr. Bolduck? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Alexander? Aye. Vice Chair Ballard? Aye. Okay. All right. Case number 251184, City v. 2235 Harborview Trust, Laura Lyons, trustee, and John N. Koonin, trustee. Rachel. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, board. My name is Rachel Laurel, City of Dunedin, Co-Compliance Inspector, testifying in reference to 25-1184. This property is located at 2235 Harborview Drive. The property went before this board for the siding, fascia, and soffits that were loose, hanging, or missing. The border window is not kept in sound condition, good repair, and weather tight. The window was repaired before the code compliance order date of July 3rd, 2025. The rest of the violations remained. At the June 3rd, 2025 hearing, the board found the property in violation of International Property Maintenance Code, IPMC Section 304.1, General, IPMC Section 304.1.1, Paren 8, unsafe conditions, IPMC Section 304.6, exterior walls, and IPMC Section 304.1.3, window, skylight, and door frames, and ordered that the violation be corrected by July 3rd, 2025, or a fine amount of 150 a day will be imposed. I re-inspected the property on July 7th, and found the remaining violations continued to exist, so I completed an affidavit of non-compliance for the board's approval. There was a permit by the owner, which you need to have a permit for the for the fascia and soffit. That was issued on July 1st, 2025. Yesterday, I went to the property on August 4th, 2025, and I conducted a re-inspection of the property and noticed someone installing the soffit to the north side of the property, and the remaining violations were also corrected. So I'm submitting an affidavit of non-compliance for the dates of July 4th to August 4th at $150 a day. So the affidavit of non-compliance and compliance. And I'm going to show to you the pictures from the code board. This is the fascia soffit north side of the property. You can see the soffit was missing. The siding was hanging. This is my presentation from the code board. So I'll fast forward to my re-inspection on July. Here's my re-inspection on July 7th, showing that the violations still existed. You can see the window next to the door on the second floor that has been repaired. That was before the compliance order that the board issued, but the rest of the items still remain. So the fines still continue. Here's a close-up of the soffit and the missing fascia. And here's the missing soffit. Every inspection was also done on July 30th, showed no change. Yesterday is showing the property in compliance. The siding is put back. The fascia and soffit in the front have been repaired. And if you look closely over the front door, there is a man there and he's replacing the soffit on the north side of the property. So the property as of yesterday is now in compliance. Okay. Just so we can avoid this issue. The respondent is not going to come into compliance unless one, he's correct to the violations and paid the outstanding fines for the non-compliance period. Okay. So technically we don't really execute an affidavit of compliance unless those two things have occurred. So even though he is in compliance as to the code sections, he's not fully in compliance because he's not paid the outstanding fines for the non-compliance. That's why I ask about that date on the order because that's an important, so if no fines were accumulated, then we can go ahead and process just the affidavit of compliance. But this affidavit of compliance and non-compliance, that's not really a procedure. I know that the way that Dunedin does fine reductions is a little bit different, but technically there's no affidavit of compliance until both of things occur. The fines are paid and the violations are correct. So then it's not an affidavit of compliance. Yeah. So we'll just do our normal non-compliance affidavit introduction and we'll make sure that we stay in the order and the proposed motion of the total outstanding fine amount that he or she still has to pay to come into full compliance. So then the same applies to the Idlewild property then, right? Correct. Correct. So it's not in compliance, even though it's in compliance for the violation. Yes, but we make sure that in the non-compliance proposed motion that we stated the total fine amount that's still pending to be paid, okay, for it to be fully in compliance. That's why I'm putting this on the record. Okay. Well, thank you. I didn't know that. I'd like to have a question for you also. Yeah, yeah, of course. Then in reality, I'm thinking my motion was incorrect. My motion should have been motion number four, date certain, in which it spells out how many days they were not in compliance and a total amount of the fee. Do we have a template motion for that? Do we? No. I'm looking through your, because I don't think you do. Number four. I'm going to show that to her. And then under repeat violation, it's under new business. Okay. But that's under repeat. That's why that's a little confusing. Well, this is a repeat violation. This one, but not the previous, not the previous one. Yeah. That's why I was like looking for that one. So in this case, it would be five, maybe no motion for date certain. Okay. But leave out. Okay. This one. Yeah. But this is new business. That's the thing. Like your template is underneath. We're still on their old business. You see what I mean? I don't think you have a template for this order. It's uh, no, this is old business, all business. So really it's three motion three. And then you would kind of did not correct the violation before our compliance day and I said affidavit of, of, of non-compliance. That's, and then you add that little sentence in there saying, but they are in compliance as of today's day with the remaining outstanding fine amount of, you kind of have to modify the language. The template is not, unfortunately, I'll, I'll, I'll work. I'll bring a motion template for this, but unfortunately the template is not all encompassing of what you need. So we can do a motion three and just add that they are in compliance as to the violating the violation itself, but not fully in compliance because the payment of the fines are still outstanding. See what I mean? Yeah. Okay. Is that okay? Mr. Walensky, is that okay? Is that? Thank you. Okay. Mr. Walensky, you have a motion? Put me on the spot here. All right. I move in case number 25-1184 for the property located at 2235 Harborview Drive, uh, to the find the respondent, uh, Lions, uh, trustee, John K. Kennan, trustee, did not correct the violation or before the compliance date of 7-4 of 25, um, but are now in compliance. Therefore, uh, between 7-4 and 8-4, uh, they will be fined $150 per day for a total fee of $4,500. And to accept the affidavit of non-compliance. And to accept the affidavit of non-compliance. Of non-compliance. Mr. Walensky. You have to second this motion first, right? Yeah, but that's the last part of the motion. And to accept the affidavit. Oh, and to accept the affidavit of compliance. Non-compliance. Non-compliance. That's what I said. Okay. We've got a motion on the floor. Can I have a second? Lisa Hunt, second. All right. We've got a motion and a second, Catherine. Mr. Gillette. Second. Aye. Mr. Bolduck. Aye. Mr. Walensky. Here. Aye. Ms. Hunt. Aye. Mr. Sweetser. Aye. Mr. Alexander. Aye. Vice Chair Ballard. Aye. And I do apologize if Chair Stone were here to get you guys all in order. All right. Okay. Uh, we are on to new business. Um, I've got case number two, five dash one, four, five, five city versus Alessandrelli. Michael, 2800 Long Putt Court. And Rachel, that's yes. Good afternoon, board. Uh, my name is Rachel Laurel, City of Dunedin Code, uh, Compliance Inspector. Uh, this is, uh, a presentation, PowerPoint presentation for the property located at, uh, uh, 2800 Long Putt Court, uh, case number 25 dash one, four, five, five, five. I am requesting a declaration of violation. The respondent is Michael J. Alessandrelli, Alessandrelli. Uh, his address is 2800 Long Putt Court in Palm Harbor, Florida 34683. The zoning single family home in the CR 200 zoning district. Number of violations is one of DCO section three, four dash three, one environment, excessive growth of weeds, grasses, or turfs. It shall be unlawful for any person who shall own control or occupy any lot parcel of land or premises in city to allow weeds, grasses, or turfs to grow upon, uh, grow up on such lot parcel of land or premises to a height exceeding 10 inches. A notify, uh, notice of violation is posted to the property city hall and send certified mail to the owner on June 10th, 2025 with the compliance date of June 20th, 2025, uh, certified mail for the notice of violation for the owner was returned to the office on July 23rd, 2025 at 2 46 PM. I noticed a hearing was posted to the property city hall sent certified mail to the owner on July 8th, 2025 and the certified mail for the notice of hearing for the owner is still attempting delivery. Uh, this property is vacant and abandoned by the, um, owner. Uh, there is no communication with the owner. I have communicated with the son up in New York who doesn't communicate with his father. Um, and apparently nobody in the family, uh, knows, uh, his whereabouts. I received, um, a complaint from the neighbor across the street on, uh, June 9th, um, about the overgrowth on the property. And I did a re-inspection on June 10th and posted a notice of violation to the front door. This is the front of the home. This is the side of the home. Here is a picture of my affidavit of posting and notice of violation, uh, that I posted to the front door. And here's a closeup picture. Here is my banner page for my certified mail. And, uh, from the post office showing that the mail was, uh, returned back to the office, uh, back to the office on July 23rd at 2 46 PM. A re-inspection was done, um, on 6 23, uh, showing that the, uh, property was still overgrown. And here's another picture, another angle from the side, uh, showing the overgrowth. Um, I did more research. Every time I get complaints on this property, I do research for the property owner, but, uh, none of the phone numbers are valid. Um, I did a re-inspect on, uh, July 8th, 2025. You can see the grass, uh, continues to grow. It's grown into the street. It was grown over the sidewalk, uh, as the front of the property. Here's the same angle, uh, the side of the property. You can see in the left-hand corner, the neighbor is mowing his grass. So you can see quite a bit, uh, bit of overgrowth. And this is the day that I posted the affidavit of posting and notice of today's hearing on July 8th is a closeup picture. And here is my banner page for the notice of hearing and, um, showing that, uh, the notice of hearing is still attempting, uh, delivery through the post office. I did do a re-inspection, uh, because on the day of the posting of the notice of hearing, the complaining came out and he was very upset with me and the condition of the property. Uh, I told him that it was going to be scheduled to go before the board. Um, I went back on July 11th to re-inspect and I saw the property was mowed. I don't know who, um, mowed the property. Uh, and that's the reason why I was, uh, requesting a declaration of violation. So it's in compliance. Somebody mowed the grass. This picture, July. And I went by yesterday. It has not been recently mowed, but it's not in violation as of yet. So I'm unsure who, who mowed the grass back on July 11th. Rachel, uh, do we know if there's a homeowners association involved within this neighborhood? I do not know. My complainant's always been the complainant across the street, the neighbor across the street and both the husband and the wife call me and the husband usually meets me. It's in a little cul-de-sac. And when I go around the corner, he's out there holding his hand up and complaining, but he too, he, he hasn't seen any activity at the property. If so, it's not homeowners. I doubt it. No, the homeowner is gone. There's no homeowner association. Just for, I do not. Do you not? I don't know. I know. I owned a lot across the street at one time. So they, there wasn't one then. So. Oh, I don't know. No. And they're, they don't do much. Question for, uh, this is Dan Bolduc. The property address is 2,800 Long Putt Court, Palm Harbor. Yes. So why is that in front of us? It's in city jurisdiction. Most of that street is the city. It's in several of those streets over there. They're, they're in and out of the city. So we need to look it up. Yep. Palm Harbor. Yeah. So it's on the outskirts. That's interesting. Yes. I'm sorry, Rachel, you're asking for a notice of violation. Uh, recommendation for case number 25 dash one, four, five, five with, uh, one violation of DCO section 34 dash 31 environmental, uh, environment excessive growth of weeds, grass, or turf. Since the property is in compliance request and a declaration of violation, any future violations of the same ordinance within the next five years by the same property owner will be considered a repeat violation subject up to $500 per day. Thank you. Um, board members ready for a motion. It just seems kind of excessive $500 a day for grass. Um, that's just my recommendation. That's your recommendation is $500 per day. If they come in, if they come, if it, if they come before the board again, it will be $500 per day for not mowing their grass. Um, yes. Is that correct? Up to $500. Like the board has that discretion. Now their recommendation and what the board does, it's completely different, but for repeat violators, those fines can be, uh, up to 500 under the state section. This, this is an abandoned vacant property. So, and the neighbors had enough. So can I, can I ask, has, has the owner ever been found? No, nobody's found him. Even his son and his uncle John who lives in Palm Harbor. Are the police involved? I think the son has been in contact with him, but he moves around. Okay. So he's not, he's not. Has there been a wellness check inside the house? No, but he's not in the home. He was in Bel Air. Okay. I watch a lot of British crime shows. I know. There'd be a body in there. The inside of the home needs some work too, as well as the swimming pool. The home needs some work. Okay. Lisa Hunt motion. I move in case. Hold on. I'd move in case 25-1455 City versus Alessandrelli Michael Alessandretti for the property located at 2800 Long Putt Court did not correct the violation on or before the compliance date of six, let's see, original compliance date. 610? 620. 20? Yes. 620, 23, 25. Excuse me. 620, 25. They are now in compliance. This declaration of violation serves as notice that if the respondent is found in violation of code section 34-31, environment, excessive growth of weeds, grasses, or turf, again, within five years from the date of this order, an immediate fine of up to $500 per day may be imposed. I'll second that. Walensky, I'll second that. Okay. We've got a motion and a second. Catherine? Mr. Gillette? Mr. Bolduck? Nay. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Nay. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Alexander? Aye. Vice Chair Ballard? Aye. Okay. Case number 25-1289 City versus Massaquii Erica at 1027 Douglas Avenue. Michelle. Good morning or good afternoon. Yes. This is for 1027 Douglas Avenue. My name is Inspector Michelle Gilbert. The case number 24-966, and I'm requesting a declaration of violation. The respondent is Erica Massaquii. The address that she has listed is 1027 Douglas Avenue in Dundeen, Florida, 34698-4947. The zoning is a single-family residence located in the downtown residential DR zoning district. Number of violations is two. First one is DCO section 34-31, 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 the city to allow weeds, grasses, or turf to grow up on such lot, parcel of land, or premises to a height exceeding 10 inches. And the second violation, DCO section 34-32, environment, premises to be kept clean of offensive accumulation. It should be unlawful for any 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 matter of any kind to accumulate in or upon such premises, and such accumulation shall be deemed to be a public nuisance. A notice of violation was sent certified email, emailed, and posted to the property 5-9-25 with a compliance date of 5-28-25. A notice of hearing was sent certified mail, emailed, and posted to property on 7-15-2025. I received certified mail confirmation for the notice of violation. It was returned from Colorado. They do reside out of state in Colorado, and it was returned from the Colorado address on 6-23-2025 at 3-09 p.m., and returned to sender at 5-22-25 at 2-25 p.m. I received certified mail confirmation for the notice of hearing, returned from the Colorado address. I just checked today, and it was returned today, and then the other one was returned to sender for the Dunedin address on 7-23-2025 at 2-46 p.m., and this shows the certified mails, as I just spoke of. Notice of violation sent certified 5-9-2025, and the violation returned certified mail, 5-22-2025 at 2-55 p.m. to original sender. The Denver address, this is for the notice of violations. It attempts delivery there, but it always gets returned, but they do receive it via email. Douglas address for notice of hearing sent 7-16-25, returned to sender 7-23 at 2-46 p.m., and then the Denver address. Notice of hearing sent 7-16-2025, and then today, I checked it and printed this off. Notice of hearing could not be delivered on 8-22-2025 at 8-23 a.m., and returning to sender from the Denver address. On 4-24 or 4-25-2025, this was the condition of the property, and 4-29-2025, 5-02-2025, and as you can see, it doesn't really change much. This is 5-6-2025, so this is my notice of violation that was posted to property on 5-9-2025, requesting that they maintain the property, and that's a picture of the front of the home. 5-12-2025, it still remains on the door with no change. Then the property was cut on 5-27 of 2025. And this was the email conversation back and forth between myself and the property owner. Every time we have discussion, it comes to, we're demoing the property, we just haven't got it there yet. We usually have somebody who cuts it, but we don't have anybody. So this is a back and forth thing. We do this often at this property. 6-11-2025, you can see it starting to grow again. 6-30-2025, it was about two feet long here around the entire property. July 9-2025, now it's getting all over the sidewalk, it grows into the street. And as you can see on 7-11-2025, it's extremely tall. 7-14, it was getting so tall that it was falling down. So this was my notice of hearing posted to property July 15-2025, and that's what I had to get through to get to the door to post. 7-15, there's another front view of the poem, 7-15. And I'll get you guys to deliberate. Okay, board members, do you have any questions? Willensky, the second violation premises to be kept clean of offensive accumulation. What was the offensive accumulation? They have planters and chairs and garbage like, you know, those leaflets that get thrown with the newspapers. They're everywhere in the grass. And then what everybody tosses in there. I mean, people walk by and just throw things in the yard. Just trash in general. Yes. And as of your last visit yesterday, right? Yes. Yesterday, I was out. They're maintaining it now because I set them up with the landscaper. All right. So now they are in compliance, right? Yes. So they have somebody now that's coming bi-weekly during the summer, during wintertime, and they'll do it once a month. And that's pending the, you know, the rain or what have you. I, as I said to them, I can't foresee the future for the forecast, but you've been put in, you know, contact with a really good landscaping person who will help you out. And they're doing a good job working together, but they have to maintain the property. So they assured me that that's what they're going to do now because they have him on board. And until they demo it, which could be who knows when. They're trying to get their funds together to get rid of the home. So my recommendation for case number 25-1289, number of violations being two. DCO section 34-31, environment, excessive growth of weeds, grasses, or turf. And DCO section 34-32, environment, premises to be kept clean of, offensive accumulation. Property is currently in compliance. I'm requesting a declaration of violation. Any future violation of the same ordinance within the next five years by the same property owner will be considered a repeat violation and subject up to $500 per day. And this concludes my presentation. And you're not recommending any fines because they were not, well, they were in compliance on 527, but they went out of compliance, back into compliance. Yeah, they go in and out. So you're not requesting any fees at this time. Thank you. No. Thank you. Board members, I'll entertain a motion. Thank you. Lisa Hunt. I move in case 25-1289, City v. Erica Massacoy for the property located at 1027 Douglas Avenue. Find the respondent. Erica Massacoy did not correct the violation on or before the compliance date of, was it May 9th? 528-25. 528-25. They are now in compliance. This declaration of violation serves as notice that if the respondent is found in violation of code section 34-31 and 34-32, again, within five years from the date of this order, an immediate fine of up to $500 per day may be imposed. I'll second that. Mr. Gillette? Willinski? Mr. Gillette? Mr. Bulldog? Aye. Mr. Willinski? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Alexander? Aye. Vice Chair Ballard? Aye. Okay. Thank you, Board. Case number 25-1575, City v. John P. Garrett at 1660 Cinnamon Lane. Good afternoon, Board. My name is Rachel Laurel, Code Compliance Inspector for City of Dunedin. This is a repeat violation. Case number 25-1575. This property came before you back in August, August 13, 2024, when the Code Board found the property in violation of Florida Building Code Section 105.4.1, permit intent. The Code Compliance Board gave until December 13, 2024 to comply or suffer a fine amount of $250 per day. I conducted a re-inspection on December 20, 2024 and found the violation continued to exist. So an affidavit of non-compliance was completed and it was imposed before the Code Compliance Board on January 7, 2025. The respondent is John P. Garrett. He resides at 1660 Cinnamon Lane. This is a single-family home in the R100 zoning district. The number of violations, which is the same as the previous case, is for Florida Building Code Section 105.4.1, permit intent. A permit issue shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and not as authority to violate, cancel, alter, or set aside any of the provisions of the technical codes, nor shall issuance of a permit prevent the building official from thereafter requiring a correction of errors in plans, constructions, or violations of this code. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within six months after its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of six months after the time the work is commenced. A notice of repeat violation and notice of hearing was posted to the property in City Hall and sent certified mail to the owner on July 8, 2025. The certified mail for the notice of repeat violation and notice of hearing was signed for by the owner on July 10, 2025 at 1243 PM. I added pictures from the previous case. This was the last photo that I took of the property to refresh your memory. This was taken back on January 16, 2025. This is an addition to the home that required a permit for either completion or demolition, and neither one has been applied for. Here's another picture taken on January 16, 2025, showing the side and the depth of this addition that this homeowner is trying to build. So I received a complaint on July 2, 2025, again from the president of the HOA. I believe he was getting complaints from the residents there that the property is just sitting stagnant and nothing is going on. So on July 3rd, I opened a case up as a repeat violation, re-inspected the property to find that there was no change to the condition of the property, and I sent an email to the property owner. So you can see this is the front of the home, and here is the front and side of the home. That was taken on July 3rd. July 8th, since I did not hear back from the property owner, an affidavit of posting, notice of repeat violation, notice of hearing on the door. Here's a close-up picture. Here is my banner page for my certified mail, and here is the signature from the property owner where he signed for the certified mail on July 10th, 2025 at 1243 PM. I received another call from a neighbor on July 15th asking for an update on the property. July 18th, I tried calling the property owner, but the mailbox was full. I sent an email to the owner asking how he was coming along with a permit for either the continuation of the addition or a permit for the demolition, and that the property would be scheduled to go back before the co-compliance board as a repeat violator, and that the fines would be $500. I asked for a response to my email. I received no response from the owner. July 22nd, there was no response from the owner, so I went to the house, knocked on the door, but there was no answer. I left the door hanger asking for the owner to call to discuss the violation, no response. July 30th, since there was no response, I went back to the property, knocked on the door, there was no answer. I left another door hanger asking for the property owner to call me. So on yesterday's date, August 4th, since there was no response, I went back to the property and I did meet with, you can see in the driveway and his brake lights are on, that is the ex-son-in-law of the property owner who told me he is not doing well medically, and I asked if his daughter can speak on his behalf, and he said that he would pass it along to her to see if she could come and give a status of the permit and what his intentions are for the property, but she did not show up. So I've made every attempt, it's like once or twice a week I'm going to the door, knocking on the door, sending emails, I try making phone calls. Sometimes the vehicle, there's a van, sometimes the vehicle's there, they just don't answer the door, and I leave door hangers asking for him to call, and he doesn't call. So that's the reason why it's before you today. So I remember this case. So they came before us in January and they spoke of the contractor took the money and ran, right? So they're just kind of left with what was built and then couldn't find the contractor. I believe the contractor pulled his, pulled the permit, pulled his name from the permit. Pulled the homeowner's name from the permit? For no payment. The homeowner did not pay the contractor, so he no longer wanted to be the contractor of record. So he contacted the building department and said he wanted to be pulled, pulled off of the permit. So that's where it stands now. So, but the son-in-law says he's not doing well medically, so. Rachel, do you have a recommendation? A recommendation for case number 25-1575, a repeat violation of 105.4.1, permanent intent, requesting a fine amount of $500 per day for the following dates, July 8th, 2025 through July 27th, 2025, totaling 20 days because our fines cap at 20 days and that totals $10,000. Rachel, during the first, uh, Walensky, during the first violation back on 8-13-24, um, was the structure the same as what we're seeing today? Yes. Um, is there a slab in there? Yes. The trusses are inside. It's hard to see on the angle. The trusses look like they're rotten inside, so I don't know if they'd be able to be used. So this has been going on since, yeah, almost a year? I think it's been going on longer. It's been going on for several years. Oh, wow. That it's been in this condition. And the neighbors are not happy. So the neighbors just didn't report it quickly. They just, they reported sometime in August of 24, and that's when the first violation was. That's when I, but I believe those previous, my supervisor, right, had a case. I think other code people before me had cases. Oh, wow. Is it possible to maybe delay this until our next meeting so we can see the previous meetings? Because I'm, I'm remembering them coming before us, um, and we gave them an extension to do the right thing, pull the permits. And then how did that get off of our radar if now it's back? He mentioned that he was coming into money, um, and that he was going to continue, um, with the project. I questioned the ex-son-in-law, and he says it's attorneys are involved, and that's taking longer than expected. So I'm getting phone calls from the HOA president frequently. That's what's brought this case back up. Right. So my question is, is how did it come into compliance? It hasn't. So it's been in non-compliance ever since January, and they're already accruing fines. Correct. When I started with the city, I believe in 22, I brought this case to the code board as well, and there was a fine, and the fine was just stagnant. So there was another complaint, so Rachel brought them to the board again for a repeat violation. So there's been two fines on this property. Unfortunately, they're going to either have to pull a permit and finish the project, or demo it, the HOA. You can't just leave a property unfinished. So there's a lien on the house then currently from previous fines, and do we know the total of that? I don't off the top of my head. I want to say it's probably $5,250 a day because this is the repeat. Correct. Tough spot to be in. It is. Yeah. Do we know he's in the hospital, or he's just not doing well? He's home, but he's not, he's, I guess, bedridden, because I've been trying to push for him to come to give an update, and no response until the son-in-law happened to pull in right when I was there. So I kind of cornered him, and that's what he told me. He was not physically able to come. I wish he would have called, because I've reached out to him numerous times, but I've had no response. Instead of throwing another fine at it, which is what, the third fine? Why don't they, why isn't the city enforced the lien? It's up to our attorney. Are you sure this is, I'm pretty sure this is homestead property, correct? Yes, it's homesteaded. It's homestead property. The property owner has certain rights. We can't, we can't close a lien on homestead property without either the property owner selling the property, transferring the property. There has to be some foreclosure and security interest in their mortgage for us to have any rights over this. Now, you didn't mention this is a repeat violator, but there was a previous case that never reached compliance, correct? Correct. That's why. Yeah. So thank you for asking that question. So that case is still open, and the fines are accumulating per day, right? Because there were per day fines. Yeah, but they capped at 20 days. Okay. And so did my previous case. I see. And, and, but that's still ongoing, non-compliance? No. And then you open a new case based on the homeowner association complaint for a repeat violator. They want something done. They want the city to step in. Yeah, there are other methods under the code. Dunedin has other methods under the code to, for nuisance violations and for abatement procedures, right? We have our abatement code provisions that we probably should have researched and kind of gone that route since we have an open case still pending. You see, like they, technically they can't be a repeat violator if there's still an open case pending from their prior violations back in December. Right. Do they have to come in compliance? They have to come into compliance. That's where, that's why you have that five year, within five years of that prior case, right? So they come into compliance and now your repeat violation is, you're once again violating the same code section. Because even on the state side, it doesn't even have to be the same property. It's just the same property owner within the five years. Right. So we can't keep opening new cases. We can't keep opening new cases and then adding more if the other cases haven't been closed. We have a pending. Because you have those 20-day cap, it's a little bit different what other cities experience, right? Because for others, most other municipalities, you just have that fine going, right? But you do have that cap. But it's still within the state statute. Technically, that case was never closed. He's not repeating a new violation. It's the same violation under the same case. Even if you brought it, that case was never closed. Right. Well, Linsky, I agree that we should probably postpone it until the city attorney comes up with a solution for next month. Yeah. I think the best solution would be if the board wants to introduce a motion to refer this case for further proceedings. If you want to have the date for next month, that's fine. You can leave it open and we can reissue a notice of hearing if necessary. You don't have to state the date for the next hearing. And then I'll work with code enforcement and we'll work under your abatement procedures to see if the city can then come in and kind of achieve compliance through a different procedure. Because we still have that case spending. Mm-hmm. Okay. Okay. Sweet, sir, has a question. Do you know if there's other liens on the property, aka the contractor, that was left? I believe so. I believe there's other. If you look through Pinellas County Clerk, I don't want to say in my capacity. There may be other actions going on. Mm-hmm. Yeah. And somebody mentioned- And that's what I remember. ...involved. Yeah. So, again, I appreciate what Matt said, that turning it over to the city attorneys at this point, I personally feel that 30 days is, I hate to put the city on the spot, but I personally think they should either do something about legal moves to, like Matt said, enforce the lien. Instead of keep adding, I don't know how to term it, but you're just adding another one, or another one, it's like, I mean, I think that shift sailed. They've had plenty of time to, it's been a year, so. I agree. Thank you. Board members, I'll entertain a motion to turn this over to the city for whatever remedies that may be available for this case. I'll second that. Alexander? No, if somebody needs to make that motion. Which one? Where? Is it going to be just off the cuff? Just off the cuff. Just state the case name and the property address and- Gotcha. Lisa Hunt. I'm moving case 25-1575 for the property located at 1660 Cinnamon Lane. To find the respondent, John P. Garrett is not in compliance, and the case will be turned over to the city attorney for further remedy and research until- Okay. That's great. I just state that the property owner is not in compliance from his previous case. We don't have that case number. Do we have the case number from the previous case? 24-403. Well, if Ms. Hunt- In January? Yep, 24-403. Kind enough to amend. Just to state that case number. Should I start it? You want me to start it over here? No, just, you can just amend. Um, amending the current affidavit of non-compliance to include the case number 24-403, city versus John P. Garrett, 1660 Cinnamon Lane. Amending the motion on the floor. Thank you. I need a second. Alexander, I'll second. Mr. Gillette? Second. Aye. Mr. Bolduck? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Alexander? Aye. Vice Chair Ballard? Aye. Okay. Uh, case number 25-1299, City versus Antoinette Gugliotta, 1445 Overcash Drive. Good afternoon, Board. My name is Rachel Laurel, City of Dunedin Co. Compliance Inspector. This is case number 25-1299. The respondent is Antoinette L. Gugliotta. Uh, she resides at 1445 Overcash Drive, the zoning single-family home in the R60 zoning district. Number of violations are 1 of IPMC, International Property Maintenance Code, Section 304.10. Stairways, decks, porches, and balconies exterior structure. Every exterior stairway, deck, porch, and balcony, and all apprentices attached thereto shall be maintained structurally sound and good repair, and good repair with property anchorage and capable of supporting the imposed loads. A notice of violation was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner on May 5th, 2025. And a second notice of violation was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner on July 11th, 2025. For the first notice of violation, the compliance date was 30 days. Uh, so I'm making it June 5th, 2025. And the compliance date for the second notice of violation was July 21st, 2025. Certified mail for the notice of violation for the owner was returned to the office on May 28th, 2025 at 2.51 PM. And the second notice of violation is still attempting delivery. Notice of hearing was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner. Certified mail to the owner for the first notice of hearing was on June 20th, 2025. And the second notice of hearing July 22nd, 2025. Certified mail for the notice of hearing to the owner was also returned to the office on July 22nd, 2025 at 3.08 PM. And the second notice of hearing is still attempting, uh, delivery. On April 28th, 2025, I received a complaint from the rear neighbor about a dilapidated deck. I sent an email to the property owner who goes by the name Tony to make arrangements to meet so I can inspect the, uh, the complaint. On May 2nd, 2025, since I did not hear back from Tony, I made arrangements with the complainant to go in her backyard to see the deck. I received a voicemail from Tony saying she was sleeping, but heard us. Uh, and when she got up, we were gone. I went with my supervisor. She was upset that she could not meet with me to show me her backyard. May 5th, uh, here's a picture. Here's a picture showing the slats, the wooden slats to the deck or, uh, down on the ground. Some are lifted up, some are chipped, curled, some are decaying. To where the chair legs are touching the ground. Some are decaying to the point they're not there anymore. May 5th, the first, uh, affidavit of posting and notice of violation was, uh, posted to her front door. Here's a closeup picture of that affidavit, uh, of posting and the notice of violation. Since the property owner's information is redacted on the, uh, property appraisers, uh, website, the notices were addressed to current residents. Here is a, uh, picture of the banner page and the certified mail showing that the notice of violation was returned on May 28th, 2025 at 2.51 PM. Um, uh, so on May 20, uh, May 5th, 2025 notice of violation posted front door city hall mail certified to property owner with the compliance date of June 5th. I received the voicemail from Tony. She was upset that I posted the notice to her door. She wanted to meet with me. So I told her to give me a date and time and I'll stop by to meet with her. She said on May 7th at 9 AM. So here's the pictures of May 7th at, uh, 9 AM. I went to a location with my coworker to meet with Tony. She took us to the backyard to show, show us her deck. Tony said she was not able to do the work herself and she did not have the money to hire someone to remove or repair the deck. She refused to do any work to the deck. She told me that the, um, man that she hired to install her dishwasher couldn't go through the front door. She went, he went through the back door. He stepped on that tile that's underneath the dog mat. And because there was a hole, she put tile down to cover the holes in her deck. Um, he stepped on the tile and, um, broke it. We discussed the violation, what needed to be done and for her to call me when the violation was corrected. And I will go back out to re-inspect. This was on May 7th. Here's other pictures in her backyard, um, with her present showing the wood slats are curled up. They're decaying. Some are missing. They're rotted away. Some are chipped. Um, on May 14th, 2025, I received an email from Tony saying she's working overtime, but she is not financial, uh, financially able to do anything with the deck. On May 15th, 2025, I replied to Tony saying she would need to comply in the ways that we discussed. On June 11th, I sent an email to Tony telling her the compliance time frame was up. The compliance time frame for the first notice of violation was June 5th. And asked her when, um, would be a good time for me to stop by to re-inspect. On June 13th, I received an email from Tony with other complaints about her rear neighbor, but not a time frame to re-inspect her property. June 16th, I responded to her saying that she didn't provide a time frame to meet up in her previous email, that if I didn't hear back from her, um, by June 18th, then I will have to schedule the property before the co-compliance board. I still did not hear back from her. Uh, so on June 18th, 2025, I called Tony to ask her if I could come by to re-inspect the property and she told me no for me to take my pictures from the complainant's property. I called the complainant and she said I could go on her property anytime I needed to. So this is the pictures from the complainant's property on June 18th, showing that nothing has been done. Everything still looks the same. So on June 20th, a notice of hearing was posted to the property city hall and mail certified to the property owner. And at that time, the co-compliance board hearing date was July 1st. So here is, uh, pictures of the day that I posted the first notice of hearing. Here's a picture of the affidavit of posting and notice of hearing on her door on June 20th. Here's a closeup picture. Here's a, uh, my banner picture for the notice of hearing. And the notice of hearing was returned to the office unclaimed on July 22nd, 2025 at 3 0 8 PM. Uh, so because the notice, uh, violation notice of hearing was addressed to current resident on June 23rd, 2025, the business manager, Joan sent an email to my supervisor and myself asking how we could take someone to the code board without using their name. So my supervisor on June 25th, 2025 sent an email to the city attorney asking about the procedure when a property owner's information is redacted on the Pinellas County property appraisers website. The city attorney, uh, replied back same day, uh, and told us to reach out to the Pinellas County property appraiser's office and request that they share the exempt mailing address information with the code enforcement office pursuant to sections 162.06 and 162.12 of the Florida statutes. So on, uh, July 9th, 2025, I sent an email to the property, uh, Pinellas County property appraisers office requesting the property owner's redacted information, citing the Florida statute that was given by the city attorney. I received the response, um, this, uh, same day, uh, quickly from the property appraisers office, uh, saying the mailing address was the same as the site address and the property owner's name was Antoinette L. Gugliotta. So another, a second notice of violation with the property owner's name, was posted on the property city hall and mail certified to the property owner on July 11th, 2025. Here are pictures that I took again from the complainant's property since, uh, Tony denied access to her property showing that there's been no change to the deck. It's all still in the same condition. And here is my second affidavit of posting and notice of violation this time because she had 30 days with her first notice of violation. She had 10 days to comply. Um, in addition to the 30 from the first notice of violation. So her compliance date was July 21st, 2025. So here's a picture of a posted on a front door. Here's a closeup picture of this second, um, notice of violation. Here is the banner page now showing her address, her name and her full address. And this is the, um, uh, USPS certified mail. It's for the notice of violation. It's still attempting, uh, delivery. So on July 22nd, 2025, a second notice of hearing with the property owner's name was posted on the property city hall, mail certified to the property owner. Here's a picture, um, taken from the complainant's, um, property showing there has been no change, um, to the, to the deck. And here's a picture to this, a picture of the second affidavit of posting and notice of hearing posted to her front door. Here's a closeup picture. Here is my notice of hearing with her name and her address. And the second notice of hearing is still attempting delivery. So on July 31st, I spoke to Tony about the violation and she asked if I could meet her at her property to re-inspect. Now she wanted to meet with me and she wanted to meet yesterday, um, on August 4th at 10 AM. So my coworker and myself went to the property and met with Tony to re-inspect the deck. You can see this is yesterday's pictures. Everything is still the same. The tiles are still in the same, uh, location. The condition of the deck is there. She bought new cushions for the, for the chairs. Um, but the, the deck is still rotten and raised. Um, and, uh, she told me that she did start to make phone calls to contractors to get estimates on the repair or replacement of the, um, uh, broken, dilapidated, decaying of the, the deck slot, uh, slats to replace them. And I'll leave it up to the code board to deliberate. That was a long one. Yes. Would you like to come up please? If you could please state your name and address for the record, speak into the microphone. Antoinette Gugliano 1445 overcast drive. Can you guys, can you hear her? Okay. Is that on? It's on. Okay. You might just pull it a little bit closer to you. Uh, board members, uh, do you have questions for, uh, for Ms. Walensky? I had a question for, um, for Rachel. Um, was there any discussion, uh, with Tony with regards to, uh, a date set that she could have the deck work done? She doesn't want to have the deck work done. That's why she's before you today. So she wants to have the deck, uh, demolished. No. Okay. She doesn't want to do anything. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Miss, is it Gugliotti? Yes, Gugliotti. Okay. Can you please go ahead and, uh, you have your turn to, uh, address the board with whatever information you'd like to give us? I didn't purchase the cushion. I stated because yesterday was my birthday. It was a gift for my friends. Okay. I did not purchase the cushions. Um, when I purchased the home, that deck was originally there. So after a few years, um, I went ahead and I had it replaced. A friend of mine who lives across the street, um, helped me to do that. And that was back in, and I bought the house in 96, maybe around 2000. So my neighbor in the back has these two humongous trees. So the trees overhang on my side and they were almost touching the house. And that side on the, um, on the south side of the house, my other neighbor had two, two trees also. So it deteriorated that section of the deck. So my neighbor to the south went ahead and spent, I don't know, eight or $10,000 on removing his trees. Of course, the trees are overhanging on my property. So it's my responsibility or it's my choice to cut up to the property line. So the owner in the back, this is, this happened, this happened just recently, um, last year during the hurricane, because, um, she said that she couldn't afford to replace the fence and she wanted me to split it. And she said her ex-husband can do it for $1,600 and I pay $800. I said, I can't afford it. I said, because I'm already trimming your trees that are overhanging on my side that deteriorated my deck. So she's been there for three years. I have never ever met her. I met her when she was holding her three month old baby. Okay. I work midnights. I'm on the midnight shift. I can't afford, I, you guys are sleeping. I'm, I'm working in the midnight, on the midnight shift. I can't afford spending 10 and $20,000. I had a contractor just call me at 1230 today. It's going to cost 12 or $20,000. And I had one actually come to the house yesterday and it's going to be $10,000. I don't have that kind of money to shell out the deck. It's not safe to the public as the public's not seeing it. There's nobody in the house, but me. So I don't understand how it's affecting. I know she's trying to do your job, do her job with the inspection and everything, but I can't afford it. When the house was built, all my neighbors have a, a, a porch, a covered porch, screen porch with, with the concrete slab that's almost the length of the house. I don't have one. I have the sliders and I have the, um, the concrete slab that's like four feet wide by maybe three feet out from the, um, from the, uh, from the sliders, from the edge of the house, the foundation. And I seen it when I, when I, uh, first redid the deck. So eliminating all that is going to give me dirt. Then I have to spend more money to put sod down. I'm into horticulture. I'm outside with plants. You've seen the plants in my home. I want to show you, I want to show you what the front of my house looks like. May I? Board members, do you want to accept? But they eliminated to show the frontage of my house. This is the frontage. May I? Yes. She may introduce the evidence. You're okay. Just pass it around every board member. I have desert rose. I have, um, all different plants out there in the back. And that's, that's what I do during the day. I have no shade. All I have is the overhang to the, to the, uh, to the sliders. That's all I have. I don't know why the builder went ahead and omitted the, um, the concrete slab for the, for the, uh, whatchamacallit, you know, for the porch. She has it in the back. She's got all her stuff back there. And by the way, she can walk because she had just had a garage sale this weekend. And she was bending over and walking very well. I have a question. So just by judging the pictures of what code enforcement has shown us, if you don't mind pulling up the, one of the pictures again, just so we can have an open discussion. So yeah, that's a, that's a good one right there. So my estimate there's, uh, two by six by 12 pressure treated boards, estimating 30 boards, not including the base that goes underneath it. Um, you know, you're looking at about, you know, $1,200 in material. So you said that you had a quote of 10 to $20,000 to replace this. Yes. Okay. And I had one of them call me today and the other one, I sent emails. I don't know. I didn't check my email because I'm here to see how much they, uh, have, how much they, uh, you know, what their estimate is. So it's got to be between 10 and 20,000. I don't have that much money. You know, I already have her dog poop in my yard. Okay. Toys, her dog coming over my yard because she took down the whole fence. She took down the whole fence. She didn't have to. All she had to do is replace the center and she destroyed, well, not she, but you know, it's a storm. Mother nature, they'll grow back. Well, they haven't grown back. It was only the center sections. The two sides were strong because I seen, she had four or five guys back there take down the fence and they struggled with the two sides. So that was fine. Those two sides were fine. It was just the middle section because when the wind blew the fence towards her side, the bottom part came on my side. Do you know what I'm saying? Like it was leaning on my side. You know, I didn't go back to her to say, hey, you owe me these plants. It's mother nature, mother nature. So I let it go. And I worked with her, you know, and she said, oh, she goes, I can't afford it. Well, you know, she can't afford it. She's got three kids. One of them doesn't have a father. So, you know, I, this is crazy back and forth. But you're here before, right. But you're here before us today because there is a violation that exists based on, you're, you're here before us today because there's a violation that exists according to Dunedin city code. So that's what we're dealing with today. Board members, do you have any other questions for this homeowner? One more question. So what do you think a reasonable timeframe would, would be for you to get a couple more estimates for somebody to come in and take a look to see if it's repairable or if it can, it needs to be completely redone just to get a better idea of what it's going to cost you to, to fix? It has to be torn. It has to be all completely torn down. Okay. So what do you think a reasonable timeframe is for you to get additional quotes? I can give you a timeframe, but it's not going to be reasonable. I'll give you 10 years. I spoke to Jennifer Brownlee this morning. She asked me, what's the, what, how much time do you need? I said, five to 10 years. I don't, I don't have the money. I'm due to retire and I'm still working. I have the same code of ethics that everybody in this room has, including these two or three. Lisa Hunt, I have a question. Does she need a permit to take it apart? Not if she's doing it board for board, the same material. So if she replaces it with wood, she can remove and replace no permit. If she changes the material, then yes, she would require a permit. But if she just took it apart herself board by board, would she need a permit for that? To remove it altogether? No. No. Okay. Sweet sir. Did, was there a permit on this deck we're looking at? I don't know. It's probably as old as the house. I don't know. It was there. You said 1996. So you, you bought the house with that deck was there? Yes. Okay. Okay. And there was another, another, um, deck because it was a spa on the other side, um, that wasn't in compliance. And, uh, Alison Freeborn was my attorney when I closed on the house. Um, and the owner that sold me the house, uh, had to rebuild the deck or go to court. So he chose, the seller chose to rebuild that part, excuse me, that part. But there was no spa there. There's nothing there. It's just a square concrete slab. Would you consider a smaller deck? No, I can't. I got too much on that deck. I got too much. Here, here's, here are my plants. Here's the other side of my house. Uh, Wilinski, I've got a question for the city. Um, if she demoed the deck, does she, is she required to put sod down? No. Okay. That's a great question. Um, I haven't, there should be sod down where she could seed it. She wouldn't have to put sod down, but she could seed it to be cheaper, which it would grow through. I don't know what you're talking about. I'm just saying if you, if you paid someone to demo the deck, there's probably dirt there, right? Yes. There's nothing there except. And there, we're saying that you wouldn't have to spend more money putting sod down if you didn't want to. In fact, you could put your, all your plants instead of in pots, you put them right in the ground. That would be great. I'm just, it's another option Lisa Hunt. I was going to say, and I was just double checking, but I have the same thing. The house I bought, the deck also was just a mess. And I just, every once in a while I went out and took one plank out myself, got some gloves, got a hammer and really just one at a time, took those planks out. I mean, just a suggestion. So this is Jason. Is there a fence around that deck so nobody can see it? It's only on the south and the north side, not, not the east side. That's the fence that was taken down. Yeah. So can you put a fence on the east side and everything's good. Nobody can see it. I'm sorry, but now that we know it exists, I'm not sure if that would be a good remedy. Because what, what are the regulations saying? You know, somebody can't see it from an abutting. If the fence was up, we would have never seen the deck. The fence came down during the hurricanes and the homeowner that owned the fence could not afford it. Tony did not want to split it. So it exposed, when she continued to call in her neighbor once a month for violation since January, the neighbor decided, well, you can fix your deck. And unfortunately it just isn't getting done. It was also suggested to Tony that the city offers free mulch down by solid waste. She could go there, pick it up, put that in place as well. That's free. But it's clearly a violation that just needs to be resolved however she chooses to resolve it. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry, I can't. You want my FMLA papers? I'll give you my FMLA papers. I didn't go to work. I haven't been at work in one week. I can't afford it and physically I can't do it. So, I mean, that's... Board members, again, I'm, as I'm chairing this meeting, just to remind you all that our position here today is to determine whether or not a violation exists and whether or not, and how to move forward with whatever remedies are available to the city. I'd like to make a motion, Dan Bolduc, if there's no further questions. I have a question. Alexander, I just have a question. Miss, is there anything you are willing to do to rectify or to improve the condition? You've stated that it's going to take five or ten years and you're not going to do anything, blah, blah, blah. But is there anything you are... I went ahead. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Is there anything you are willing to say, to do, to improve, or to correct in some way, shape, or form? Is there anything you're willing to do? Well, there are senior citizens. There are people out there that volunteer to help out senior citizens that do work for them. I went ahead and I emailed or I called HUD, you know, but they go ahead and they build homes. I don't need a home built. I already have a home. You know, before my mom died, my parents lived two houses away, and they went ahead, a group of people, I don't know if it's Habitat for Humanity or somebody, arranged to have my mom's house painted. And they painted the whole house. So are you saying that you'd be willing to try to find a way to get some help like that to improve the deck? Yeah. I mean, I'm looking for what you are willing to do. I'm willing to do that, but I'm not going to spend any money on that deck. I can't afford it. I've got 30 years in the system. I'm ready to retire. I'm ready to go out. I'm not going to work until I'm 90. You're here with this violation, so we have to make an adjudication. And I'm looking to see if you have a willingness to, or is it just no, no, no, no, no, or is there a willingness to do something? That's my question. Well, I have, I'm waiting for, I contacted a dozen people here, contractors, and I heard, I only heard back from two, the 10,000 and the 20,000. That's all I heard back from. So I don't know if the rest had emailed me, because I'm here. Sweet sir, I have a question for you guys. Has anybody from the building department looked at this deck physically, or just based on photographs? Nobody has. Because from what I see, it looks like it's not repairable. I mean, because the assessment would be it's repairable, or it's got to be demolitioned completely and rebuilt. Has that determination been made, or is this kind of? Not by a building inspector. You really don't need a building inspector to determine that it's rotted. I don't think so. Well, I'm just looking at the photographs. Okay. Because demolishing it, tearing it all out, it would be like Matt said a very inexpensive choice, and it would take away the violation. Correct. Correct. She doesn't even have to have a deck. So thank you. I gave her that option. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much for attending. Do you have something else? Yeah, I have two things. Okay. I've been online with this. Code compliance inspectors are happy to work with residents and property owners to bring their property into voluntary compliance. Can you translate that for me? Because nobody told me how about, oh, go here, go this, go here, go call that. Nobody told me that. And the primary goal is to protect public health, safety, and welfare. There's nobody, nobody has access to my backyard. I have no trespassing sign in the front and the back. And her mower came and knocked on the door, and I had a 38 sitting 12 inches from me. Okay. She trespassed on my property. Well, I don't know if, I mean, I don't know if we're equipped to have to determine that, but if you would like to take that question. Yeah, ma'am. City attorney. We're here for the current outstanding violation. The testimony you just gave is not relevance as to whether this violation exists at the time that the notice of violation was issued. The court officer informed the board and everyone here today that there is no fence. As you stated, there's no fence on the north side. And this is how the the deck was exposed to the public, whether no fence, the fence, the fence came down, correct? So the officer had plain view. That's, that's what the officer... On the north side, there's a fence on the north side. It was in the center. The east, can someone clarify where... It would be the east side. Okay. And I have an active complainant that... You had an active complainant. There was plain view for taking the pictures because the docket is exposed and it's viewable to the public. Therefore, you had a legal right to be there and take the pictures. That, that's the only... That's, that would be the only relevance as to her testimony. Anything beyond that, there, there's just no relevance at this point is for the board to determine, is the deck in sound repair? That, that is the only question for the board at, at this moment. If, if you have any other evidence you would like to introduce, I'm more than welcome to review that and introduce it and pass it to the board members. It has to do with the deck. I mean, you're not even... You looked at the house, what it looks like in the front. I didn't even get a compliment or anything. Oh, yeah, great job. No, nothing. It's all negativity about the city. Okay. I have called, I have sent emails, and I haven't gotten any responses from anybody. Ma'am, I'm going to call point of order at this time. Thank you very much. Rachel, do you have a recommendation for the board? A recommendation for case number 25-1299, IPMC Section 304.10, stairway, decks, porches, and balconies, exterior structures, requesting compliance on or before September 4th, 2025, which is 30 days from today's board hearing, or given the severity of the violation is minor, I'm requesting a fine amount of $150 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. I'd like to make a motion. Dan Bolder. I move in case number 25-1299, City v. Antoinette Gugliotta, for the property located at 1445 Overcast Drive, in violation of the City of Dunning Code Sections 304.10. Order the respondent, Antoinette Tony Gugliotta, to come into compliance before October 5th, 2025. If noncompliance, a fine of $50 per day will be imposed until compliance is met. The respondent is hereby ordered to contact the Code Compliance Office for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. I'll second that. Okay, October 5th is a Sunday. Would you like to put it for the next Monday? We can amend to October 6th. Yes. Second. I'll get a motion and a second. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Boldock? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Mr. Alexander? Aye. Vice Chair Ballard? Aye. Thank you. Can I have my photo back, please? You entered it into evidence. That's why I had asked you when you brought it up that we are going to have to keep it, because it was entered into evidence. I'm sorry. Okay. October what, 5th? Beautiful property, though. Beautiful property. I'm sorry? Beautiful. Thank you. You're welcome. But October 5th, it's not going to happen. October 6th. Okay, moving on to other business. Code enforcement board member comments? Hearing none. City attorney comments? Besides that, I'll work with city staff in regards to the reprieve violation case that's pending from the prior year. Okay. And city staff comments? No, ma'am. Thank you. No comments? Nothing further. Thank you. Okay. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. I'll make that motion. Lisa Hunt, second. Nay. All in favor, aye. I'm just kidding. Aye. Aye. That was a doozy.