I would ask you to silence or mute your cell phones or any other digital devices. Welcome to the February 3rd meeting of the Dundee and Code Enforcement Board. If this is your first time here, our meetings are recorded digitally, and it's important that when you come to speak, you state your name and you keep your mouth close to the microphone. That makes it easier for the people who are doing the stenography transcription to do their job. Ms. Ballard, would you read the call to order, please? Yes. Under 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 code or codes and ordinances of the City of Dunedin has occurred. In order to meet that obligation, all parties or their 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 may be submitted to the board's 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 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. Do we have anybody here on a matter that is not on the agenda? This is the opportunity for the public to address the board. If not, we'll go forward. The first item on the agenda is the consent agenda. Approval of the meeting minutes from January 6, 2026. I personally caught one typo. Do other board members have any comments? No? Okay. On the third line, on page six, I serve as chair, but vice chair is Jamie Ballard. Catherine, you'll make that change? Okay. Thanks. Any other comments, corrections, amendments to the minutes? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to accept them. Jamie Ballard, I move. Jeremy Reynolds, I second. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Bulldog? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. The minutes are approved. Would you swear in any of people from the public who were testifying as well as the city staff, please? Okay. The third item on the agenda would be the affidavits of compliance. We have one case, 24-570. That would be the city of Dunedin versus Welkiver Properties concerning the property located at 2602 Bayshore Boulevard. I believe that's the shopping mall. Yes. Good afternoon, board. Julie Phillips, code compliance supervisor. And this is in regards to case 24-570 for code IPMC304.9 for overhang extensions for the property located at 2602 Bayshore Boulevard. At the January 6th meeting, the board postponed the affidavit of compliance until today's hearing. The property was inspected on January 7th, 2026, and the violation was corrected. I'm requesting the board accept my affidavit of compliance, and I do have two pictures to show you. Please. So this is the property that was the day after code board on January 7th, 2026, and this is what the property looks like on January 23rd. It just continues to have more and more improvements. Okay. And it's your recommendation that the affidavit of compliance be accepted now? Yes, sir. Okay. Do we need a motion on that? Jeremy Reynolds, I so move. Jamie Ballard, I'll second. Thank you both. Thank you. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Bolduck? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. The motion passes. Thank you. Okay. We're moving on to new business. Case number 25-2068, City of Dunedin versus Bennis Properties, LLC, concerning the property located at 620 Dexter Drive. Who is presenting on that, please? Hello. Good afternoon, board. My name is Michelle Gilbert, Co-Compliance Inspector with the City of Dunedin, and this is 4620 Dexter Drive, case number 25-2068. Respondent is Bennis Properties, LLC, and the owners, Bennis, Lori, and Phil. Address is 620 Dexter Drive, Dunedin, Florida, 34698. The zoning is R60, which is single-family residence. There are two violations present. The first one is the Florida Building Code Section 105.1, permits required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any impact-resistant coverings, electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. The second is Florida Building Code Section 115.3, stop-work order, unlawful continuance. Any persons who shall continue to work having been served with a stop-work order, accept such work as the person is directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition, shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by law. You notice a violation was sent certified mail, emailed, and posted to property on November 24th, 2025, with a compliance date of December 18th, 2025. Notice the hearing was sent certified mail, emailed, and posted to property on January 7th of 2026. They received the certified mail confirmation for the notice of violation on 11-28, 2025 at 11-40 a.m. for both the owner and registered agent. And they received certified mail delivery confirmation for the notice of hearing on January 9th, 2026 at 11-36 p.m. for both the LLC and the registered agent on January 9th, 2026 at 1-32 p.m. These are the certified mailings of the notice of violation, sent certified mail for November 24th, 2025, and then shows the delivered notice of violation on November 28th, 2025, 11-40 a.m. And this is a certified mail for the notice of hearing that was sent, certified mail January 7th, 2026, and the notice of hearing delivered January 9th, 2026 at 11- I mean, excuse me, at 1-36 p.m. This is certified mail for the notice of hearing sent registered agent January 7th, 2026, and the notice of hearing sent to the registered agent January 9th, 2026 at 1-32 p.m. This is a stop work order that was posted for not obtaining a permit for renovations. The entire home was gutted, and interior and exterior walls were removed, and that's November 18th of 2025. This is the notice of violation that was posted to property on November 19th, 2025. This is a copy of the notice of hearing that was posted to the property at January 7th of 2026. This is the inside bathroom floor that was broken up with new piping sticking out. This was November 18th of 2025. The actual entire inside of the bathroom was all floor was broken up. As you can see, there's the other half. The toilet's on its side broken up. It's just a continuation of the floor being removed to fix plumbing. The toilet was removed. That was November 18th of 2025. The wall's been cut up. This is a bathroom shower with new piping. This was November 18th, 2025. New drywall was starting to be installed in the bathroom November 18th of 2025. This was one of the bedroom walls at the front of the home that was damaged from a wall AC unit, and that's November 18th, 2025. This is the same bedroom with the light switch not secured. The wall plug and the outlet was not secured to the wall. Everything was just hanging off the wall. This room was gutted down to the studs. This was November 18th, 2025. You can see here they were trying to enclose a wall here right by the electrical panel. That was November 18th, 2025. Just above it, the roof was all tore up. There was no roof there or ceiling. My apologies. Here are some old wires that have been exposed with the outlet. November 18th, 2025. You can see the old plumbing. There's a stack there. Then you can see the panel was rewired. It had already been done, and that was November 18th, 2025. This just is side by side. There was another switch that was on top. This is the living room area where the wall was removed. This could possibly be a load-bearing wall, and that's what the arrows denote pointing down there. Then you can see the wall that was removed at the rear of the home. It was being held up by a wooden 2x4. That was also November 18th, 2025 on my inspection. The rear wall was removed, and they were attempting to install a window. I instructed workers to close and secure the opening in the wall until they had engineered drawings for the permits in the middle. You can see that there's a post holding up the header. That was also November 18th, 2025. Rear wall removed, attempting to install the window. Again, instructed workers to close and secure the opening in the wall until they had the engineered drawings for the permits in the middle. November 18th, 2025. This is another wall that was being put back together. They're making it in an additional room. November 18th, 2025. This shows that the wall was closed up in the back half of the home where they had initially had it wide open. They were trying to install a different window, and it's just waiting for the permit to be issued. That was December 24th of 2025. This was new plumbing that was at the front of the home. This was November 19th, 2025. And then we have a cast iron piping laying at the side of the house. This was December 24th, 2025. There's another angle that shows the cast iron, 2025 of December 24th. And I'm just going to leave the DCB to deliberate. Is there anyone here for the respondent, Bennis Properties? Would you like to be heard, sir? For the records, just state your name and your address. You've been sworn correctly. Yes, sir. Okay. Phillip Bennis, personal address, 1904 Eagle Trace Boulevard in Dunedin. In Palm Harbor, I'm sorry. I've just, well, retired last year. Started flipping homes. Not a whole lot of experience. When we purchased the Dunedin property, I originally took a bunch of pictures. And I don't know if you want to go through these. As you can see, there's a lot of debris still because we cleaned the house out. And these are the original pictures. And I'm sure I can get them time stamped off my phone. But a lot of the walls that were torn down, the electric hanging out, that was there when I purchased the home. So, we did go into the home and did some work. We did that header that she showed at the one. That was originally there. So, the previous people who bought the house, they just gave up. When I went in there originally, there was a drywall there, you know, to be placed. There was some lumber. There were tools. It seems like the previous owner tore it apart and figured it was too much and gave up on it. But if you want to compare some of these pictures to the picture she has, you'll see that, you know, the picture she has, there's no debris. These were before I purchased the home, actually. But I will admit, I'm lack of experience. You know, we went in. We cleaned the yard out. Then we went into the home. There was some rotted wood. We started replacing some rotted wood. The back wall. We did take out one wall. And I think she has a picture of it. We're putting another wall up. And where the window was, it was all rotted. All the wood was rotted inside that. So, we were replacing that rotted wood. And, yes, we were going to replace the window. But beyond that, oh, plumbing also. I hired a, what I thought was a licensed plumber. I had a copy of his license to do the plumbing. It came time. And I found out that his license wasn't valid. I have another home. I had the same problem. It just cost me $6,000 to fix it. So, I'm just plain ignorance. And I should know better, to be honest with you. As far as any of the work done there, cleaning the yard, yes. Cleaning out the house, yes, I understand. But as far as we started putting a nail on the wall or turning anything down. But I had every intention of getting a contractor. But a lot of what you're seeing was already there. And like I said, I have proof in the pictures. So, did I violate? Yeah, absolutely. And Ms. Gilbert has been very reasonable with me and very helpful. And sort of promised me, hey, let's get this straightened out and I'll go show you what to do. Tell me in the future. She's been great. So, I'm at the mercy of the court, so to speak. Did I know better? Yeah. But we didn't plan on doing a whole project without a permit. I had applied for a permit. Then I needed the engineering specs, which was a couple weeks after we initially applied for it. At the middle of December, I don't know any engineers. I've never had to have it done before. Like I said, it's my second home. And I took on way too much project than I should have. And I can't get an engineer out there in December. Nobody wanted to work. I finally got somebody. He got the work done. I got all the engineering schematics. And everything's done as far as the engineering specs. So, I should have everything I have to get, you know, moving forward. But, as I said, a lot of that, what you were seeing was already there. But I'm not saying I wasn't wrong. I was. Mr. Bennis, if you would like to introduce the images. Can you speak up, please, Laura? Yeah. If you would like to introduce your images as part of the evidentiary record, is that your request, Mr. Bennis? Yes. Yes. The board accepts. Could you please hand them the copies to our board secretary? And to be honest with you, I didn't know Ms. Gilbert had so much documentation there. I would have brought more pictures. But, as you can see, there's my wife and there are all kinds of debris and everything. That's okay. We just need you to hand the images to. Some work was done on the house where you can see some new wood prior to me getting there. But I think it'd been almost. Catherine, if you could just, you know, pass them down so each board member gets through. Okay. While we're doing this, do any members of the board have questions for the respondent? Dan Bolden. So, has the permit said 1224 waiting on permit? So, have the permits been? No. No. No. Because we're waiting on engineering? Is that correct? That's my understanding. And I turned it in to the contractor who said it was turned in. So, okay. And the permits now, because it doesn't specify, but just by seeing the pictures, the electrical work, right, that's exposed, have you changed any of the electrical work yourself? You didn't touch any electrical. Okay. It's just, or the AC vents are hanging, none of that. So, there are, you know, I'm sure Julie explained, there's several permits that you can get outside of the engineering to continue your work so it doesn't stop you from additional, correct? We're a one-permit system, so he cannot, he has to be held on on one permit, inclusive of the engineering. Okay. So, the engineering is also going to pull the electrical permit? That should be included on the permit when he goes in to apply, or his contractor goes in to apply. Okay. Any work that was done, MEP, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, all has to be on the application, inclusive of the drawings. If there is nothing done on the electrical portion, then they just need to indicate that on the drawings. So, the... They can't, they don't like it when they do onesies, twosies, one person grabs the permit here. They don't like it, they may not like it, but it's not mandatory. Is that correct? The way the permits are pulled in the city is a one-permit system, so that is how Chief Building Inspector likes to have the permits, and that's how we do it here. If he was just doing an electrical panel, that's different. There's more than that. The house is demolished inside, it's gutted inside. So, I've been working with him, trying to get engineers to, you know, like he said, we've been doing the best, I've done the best that I can. I can't, technically, I'm not even supposed to be doing that, but I do to help them because I'm trying to make it right for them and get them into compliance. Right. So, all the general contractor has to do is apply. They apply for their permit. He signs on all his subcontractors. So, if he has a plumber, he signs the plumber on. If he has an electrician, he signs the electrician on. If he has a mechanical contractor, he'll sign the mechanical contractor on. That's how that works with the city. So, is the permit that he's waiting for, do you assign yourself as the general contractor? No, sir. I have a general contractor. Okay. The unfortunate part is, you know, just by seeing the pictures, is the sheet wall, like the sheet rock's already up with... Then they'll have to take it down. There's no rough inspection, so it's got to come down and, you know, it's unfortunate. But, thank you for helping him. Sorry. I'm trying to get him to where he's into compliance. He's just working at it. I have all the engineering specs here and architectural specs, if you want me to turn those in. But, I think they were emailed to the city. Okay. Are there other board members that have questions for the respondent? Yes, I do. Walter Sweetser. A couple questions on the timeline. I'm a little confused. When did you purchase the home, roughly? Beginning of December, end of November. Beginning of December? Yes, sir. I believe I can find it for you. Shortly, actually... It's probably more November, because I got pictures in November. Let's just say November. Yes. Because I'm looking, I've got some dates in my head. And you were pretty much forewarned back at the end of November with the violations. Correct. I believe the violation was... Stop work order was issued on the 11th, or November 18th. Okay, the stop work order. That means no work. That's right. Stop work order. That's right. Was there, in your inspections, were there any, after that, was there any work being done after that? The only work that I allowed them to do was to clean up and to secure the property, because that is, by law, they have to secure the property. Okay. Was there a licensed contractor doing that work, or were they checked? No. No. There was no licensed contractor there when I was doing my inspection. But there was work being done by somebody. Correct. So it's really not the city's privy to investigate the workforce. That's not our job. If they're licensed and insured. That's not our job. That is a county thing. Correct. But it's my understanding that there's not a relationship between the county PCCLB checking out the staff or the workers or people working in the city of Dunedin. What I'm saying is that their job is to ensure that the workers, the construction companies, are licensed and insured. That's right, and they have their own code enforcement staff that handle illegal or people that work without licenses. They have their own code staff for that. Okay, but City of Dunedin does not. We don't cite unlicensed contractors. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So my next question is, where does it stand today in the application process with the city because he's hired a contractor? Okay, the contractor needs to apply online through the portal with the drawings. It hasn't happened yet. Okay. Thank you. That's clarity. Absolutely. So we're sitting here. Okay. I'm just waiting for them. We're sitting here in a late. That's why we're here. Yep. I'm just waiting for them to apply. We're sitting for that reason that that has not happened yet. He was waiting for the drawings. He was waiting for an engineer to be able to help him. He's been having difficulty. My understanding was that they had applied for it, but I needed the drawings. Okay. So was it initially applied for it, but we needed the drawings. They won't put anything in review, and I had the girls check it, and there's been nothing that's been applied for at this point. Okay. If they can attempt to put it in, but without the drawings, it won't go any further. Gotcha. Yeah. Thank you. Yep. Of course. I was assured that it was being processed, so it sounds like it might have been, and they kicked it for the engineering specs. Okay. I'm going to ask or remind people that if you're going to speak to identify yourself by name, it helps the transcribers. Are there other board members that may have questions for the respondent? Jamie? No, I have a question for staff. Okay. Excuse me. Jamie Ballard. My question for staff is, the normal process for this type of situation seems that started November of 25, here we are, 3rd of February 26, seems like a very short period of time than what we're used to seeing, or what I'm used to seeing. So I guess maybe this comes in the next section about what a recommendation would be, but, and I guess maybe I should wait to ask that question at that time. Yeah, I was just going to give the board opportunities to ask questions before we got to the recommendation. Yeah, that's a quick question. Again, your name for the record. Jeremy Reynolds. Inspector, you mentioned the, you know, alterations to potentially load-bearing walls. What concerns do you have about the structural integrity of the property and the hazard it poses to people? You'd have to speak to the chief building inspector about that. I can't speak on that. He was supposed to be here, but he's in a meeting right now. Okay. If I can interject, Phil Bennis, my understanding of the engineering and architectural specs will resolve those issues as the build goes along. It's all addressed in the engineering specs. Any load-bearing walls, any changes? That's correct. That was the concern of the chief building inspector. When he saw the photos, he said that in order for him to process a permit, it had to have engineer drawings. Okay. So, and I'll throw this out there. So, is he in a position potentially where he cannot get an engineer to design a solution? He has it. He has some. I do have a solution, and it's been engineered and stamped and certified. I have copies. Okay. So, why haven't you turned them into the city for your permit? I just got them last week. I hired the engineer in December, and I don't have experience with it, but Michelle was helping me, and it took a while to get an engineer that would actually get out to that property until January. So, then it took them three weeks to complete the paperwork. I just got it, received this last week. I gave the paperwork to my contractor, and I was assured that he was turning it in. Thank you. I wasn't aware it wasn't turned in yet. Thanks. So, at this point, how much time do you need to be able to complete the application for the permit? I would think it would be only a matter of days. I think it's just turning in the paperwork that we have. It's generally five to seven business days for review if everything's in order. Yeah, yeah. Sometimes quicker. It depends. Yeah, I was just looking at if we set a compliance date, how far out should we put it? I'm sorry? I was just thinking about how far out to put a compliance date. No further questions. Okay. Does anyone else on the board have questions for the respondent or city staff? Yes, no. Michelle, do you have a recommendation? Yes, sir. So, for 620 Dexter Drive, recommendations for case number 25-2068 with both violations, Florida Building Code 105.1 permits required, Florida Building Code 115.3 stop work order, unlawful continuance. I'm requesting compliance on or before February 24th of 2026, or given the severity of the violations is major. I'm requesting a fine of the amount of $250 per day per violation. For each day, the violations continue to exist. And for the record, would you state what you would consider to be compliance? Would it be the submittal of the request for a permit? No, it would be issuance of the permit is when I get compliance, yeah. As soon as it's paid for and it's issued, an affidavit will be done if it's done by this date. If he needs longer, that's up to you guys if you feel that he needs. This is my recommendation. If you guys grant him otherwise, then that's. Okay, and based on what you just said a moment ago, you think that the February 24th date is sufficient to allow the city staff to review the submittals? Oh, yeah. It generally only takes five to seven business days for something like this, yeah. Okay, sir, do you understand that? Absolutely. That's reasonable. Okay. So I'll entertain a motion from a board member, please. Dan Bolduc, I'll motion. Move-in case number 25-2068, City vs. Bennis Properties, LLC, property located at 620 Dexter Drive. Find the respondent, Mr. Bennis, in violation of the City of Dunning Code, sections 105.1 and 115.3. To come into compliance by February 24th, a fine of $250 will be imposed until compliance is met. The respondent is ordered to contact the Code of Compliance Office for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Thank you. I need a second. Jamie Ballard, I'll second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Wait. Excuse me, please. It has to be per violation per day. That wasn't noted. Thank you. Correct. There are two violations. Right. But it wasn't read in as such? Right. It should have... I heard that or didn't hear that as well. Do you want to amend your motion to clarify that? That's a recommendation from the City. You can either move forward and amend your motion or proceed as is. I'm sorry, Laura. I can't hear you. I'm sorry. That was a recommendation from the City to impose the per violation fine. You may amend your motion or proceed as is. Correct. I just wanted to clarify that. I'm happy to amend if it needs to be. Well, let's give Mr. Bolduc the chance to amend first. The amendment would be, if not in compliance, of $250 will be imposed until compliance is met per violation. Per day. Per day. And Jamie Ballard, I'll amend my second. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Bolduc? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. Aye. The motion passes and an order will be issued. Thank you, sir. Just so I'm clear, as long as everything's cleared up by the 24th, was it, we're good to go? Okay. I appreciate your time and, like I said, file and error. Thank you for coming in. It makes our job easier. Okay. I don't see anybody else in the audience. They're missing the second episode of the year. The next case, new business, case number 25-1955, the city of Dunedin versus Julian Phillips, Phyllis Williams, concerning the property located at 50 Squire Court in Dunedin, who is speaking to that. Go ahead, please. Good afternoon. My name is Michelle Gilbert, co-compliance inspector with the city of Dunedin. This is for case 25-1955 for 50 Squire Court. Respondent is Phyllis Williams and Julie Williams at 50 Squire Court, Dunedin, Florida, 34698-8346, zoned R60 for single-family residential. The violation is International Property Maintenance Code, Section 501.2, Plumbing Facilities and Fixtures General. The owner of the structure shall provide and maintain such plumbing facilities and plumbing fixtures. In compliance with these requirements, a person shall not occupy any structure or premises, which does not comply with the requirement of this chapter. Notice the violation was sent to certified mail to the owners posted to property and emailed December 2nd of 2025 with a compliance date of December 12th of 2025. Received the certified mail delivery confirmation for the notice of violation at the Clearwater address as the mother does not reside at the property, so I also sent to her condo. She received the certified mail delivery confirmation for the notice of violation at the Dunedin address. It was delivered to an individual on December 12th of 2025 at 1.36 p.m., and it was delivered in Lakeland, Florida. The notice of hearing was sent to the certified mail to owners posted to property and emailed on January 15th of 2026, and they received certified mail confirmation for the notice of hearing. To the Clearwater address, it was delivered 1-20-2026 at 5.07 p.m. It was also acknowledged via email on 1-20-2026 at 9.55 a.m., and with the Dunedin address, it was forwarded to a different address of Lakeland, Florida on January 20th, 2026 at 12.03 p.m., and then finally delivered January 26th, 2026 at 12.19 p.m. in Lakeland, Florida. This shows the main address at 50 Squire, the notice of violation being sent on December 2nd, 2025, and delivered December 15th, 2025 at 1.36 p.m. This shows the Clearwater address, the notice of violation sent on December 2nd, 2025, and the notice of violation was delivered on December 6th, 2025 at 2.59 p.m. This is the notice of violation that was posted to the property December 2nd of 2025, and this was the notice of hearing posting sent on 1-15-2026 and emailed direct to the owner, Phyllis Williams, and the notice of hearing delivered January 26th, 2026 at 12.19 p.m. And to the Clearwater address, a notice of hearing was sent January 15th of 2026 and then emailed direct to owner, Phyllis Williams. Notice of hearing was delivered January 20th of 2026 at 5.07 p.m., and this is the notice of hearing that's posted to property on January 15th of 2026. This was an email that I received from the homeowner, Phyllis Williams, stating that she wouldn't be attending the February 3rd, 2026 code enforcement hearing, and it was January 20th, 2026. She told me that she is not going to help her daughter anymore, that she's on her own with all bills and everything when it comes to the house. So that was in the email that was sent. Excuse me. Is this the property that was before us fairly recently with the mother and daughter, and the daughter had substance abuse issues and was inviting similar people to stay on the property? Yes, correct. And they are both still on the title? Both are still on the title, yes. So on January 14th, 2026 at 3.36 p.m., I inquired the status of the utility billing account. This is just my email to the utility billing department. And then per utility billing on the same day of January 14th, 2026 at 3.39 p.m., utility billing technician Denise Beard said that this account was turned off for non-payment in August of 2025, and they're still off. And then another email on January 14th, 2026, per Leanne Sturgeno utility billing supervisor, utility billing is getting ready to lien the property for the amount owing of $573.91. And then since May of 2025, and it will allow you to deliberate. An opportunity for members of the board to ask questions of the inspector. I think folks do recall the mother being here before us. Mm-hmm. Okay. Questions? I just have a question about... State your name, please. Jeremy Reynolds. I have a question about the time frame. So I understand that there's a case law that says that an individual must be given no less than five, no more than 30 days to come within the compliance. I know there were multiple different ways of serving notice to this individual. What date do we go by to calculate that? Notice for what? For not having water? No. Between the notice to come into compliance and the compliance date. So your compliance date was December 12th, right? She will... I haven't given her... Yes. Okay. It was December 12th, but at the first hearing, she paid her water bill right before, right before, I think two days before it was supposed to go to the board. So that wasn't brought up at the time because she was in compliance. She had water and she had sewer. Then a couple months go by and then I check on it just to make sure because she still doesn't have electricity either. Now they don't have their water or their sewer. So I've been trying to work with the mother and she said that she's done. She's not helping her anymore. And you can never get in touch with this young lady because she's never there or she's there and doesn't come to the door. So she does not have the money to pay it. So we're at a crossroads here. And it's shown because now Utility Billing, which is a different department who runs that portion, they're putting a lien on it too. So my question is, I understand that there's a time period at which, you know, services posted to the property and there's one that's mailed first class mail, but the delivery date on the first class mail was December 12th, right? I believe that was December 6th for the certified mail for that notice of violation. Well, yeah, she also gets emailed. 12th and 15th. Yeah, but she also gets emailed and it's direct to her. So because a lot of times when we post to property, the daughter will just rip it off. She doesn't look at it. She doesn't read it. And I appreciate your testimony that, you know, it was emailed, but I know that I want to say statutorily that we can consider like posted to the property and first class mail. My question is, which of those two dates do we use to decide if there was enough? So, you know, essentially under 162, you have to look at first the certified mail delivery date and then the posting on the property would be additional notice. First, you must go by that certified mail delivery. Yeah, but my question, and thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Reynolds. My question is, this case came before the board, correct, in last year? Yes. And that was a different violation? Completely different violation. There was multiple violations. Okay, I just wanted to confirm just for my purposes. Yeah. Thank you. Of course. Yeah. Okay. So under that, thank you for that clarification. So then they were given notice on December 6th with a compliance date of December 12th. Do I understand that correctly? So the notice of violation, when I inspected the property, it was in October, and I was giving them an opportunity to pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, because I like to, I don't like to take people before the board if I know that they have an ability to correct something very simple to go and pay something. And that was between her mother and her of doing it. Although it did not happen, so December 2nd, it was posted to property with a compliance date of December 12th, which is within the 10 days. Yeah, I'll get you there. But when did the certified mail get delivered? I think it would help if you state which of the two orders you're referring to. The notice of violation on the plumbing. It was delivered. The notice of violation, the certified mail was delivered on the 15th, which is just three days after. So I don't understand what you're... That's... Okay. Yeah, that was my concern. But it doesn't matter because it was posted directly to property and it was also emailed to her. Well, what counsel said, if I understand it correctly, and feel free to step on my toes, was that at first you look at the date of the certified mail. Secondary to that, you can look at the date of posting. Did I get that right? Yes. Well, we... It's not a fast... Like, this is not a hard rule. You look at both because this is homestead property. So essentially, you're probably going to shoot recital property. So you're also looking at the posted date on December 2nd. Now, I believe that we also have email correspondence from this. So all of that, those are all factors that are going to be considered in a potential due process situation, Mr. Reynolds. Yeah. Okay, so if I can cut through this. So I think we are all in agreement that they did receive actual notice, at least either via mail... Yeah, I think that we see it sufficient, given the correspondence that they have with the property owner, and the fact that this is homestead property and it was posted on the property, that we have sufficient notice here for the plumbing violation. Okay. I appreciate you bringing those dates to our attention. Does anyone else on the board have a question? Yeah. Dan Bolduc, you showed the email from the utility department to the owner saying that there's potentially going to be a lien on the home because of the over $500? I didn't show that to the owner. That was just something that I got from them because I was requesting. The owner knows that there's money owing on the property. She refuses to pay it because she said that she's not going to help her daughter anymore. I can read the email. No, no, no. I get that part. But the email that you showed from the city of Dunedin to yourself about potentially putting a lien on the home... That's utility billing. They lien stuff if it's... I mean, it's been since... When did I say? January 14th of 2026. They had an amount owing since May of 2025. So, they have their own due process when it comes to them doing their own separate liens. That's something separate from us. It's got nothing to do with code. So, they have their own due process for the bill that they have right now at this point, which is totaling $573.91. I guess my question would be, why would we do double penalty if they're having money issues where if the utility department puts a lien on the property, then they'd have to resolve that $500 and get the water turned back on? I guess that's... She also owes close to $4,000 in electricity and still resides in the house. Okay. So, there's additional utilities. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's it. Do any other board members have questions? I just have one other question. Again, please state your name just to make it easier. Oh, Jeremy Reynolds. Thanks. Why include the part about the utility billing? Why bring it into this case today? Because it's plumbing. They have no water and no sewer at the property. Okay. So, that would be the reason for... Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Does that complete all of the questions from the board members? If so, do you have a recommendation? Oh, sorry. Recommendation for case number 25-1955. Number of violations is 1, International Property Maintenance Code Section 501.2, Plumbing Facilities and Fixtures General. Requesting compliance on or before February 23rd of 2026. Or, given the severity as major, I'm requesting a fine in the amount of $250 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Thank you. You're welcome. Do we have a motion? Jamie Ballard. I move in, sorry, I'm going to go back to the page before. Case number 25-1955, City v. Julie and Phyllis Williams for the property located, which I believe I just said, nope, 50 Squire Court, Dunedin, Florida. To find the respondents did not correct violation of Code Section 501.2, Plumbing Facilities and Fixtures. I'm on the wrong one, sorry. You should be the very first one. Okay. To come into compliance by February 23rd, 2026, if not in compliance, a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until compliance is met. The respondent is ordered to contact the Code Compliance Office for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Thank you. I'm looking for a second. Jeremy Reynolds, I second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Bolduck? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. The motion passes and an order will be issued. Question for the inspector. Is anyone residing in the property now? The daughter still lives there, but she comes and goes. She'll go to her boyfriend's or wherever. But the last I spoke to her mother, she said when she was there, she wasn't in the house at the time, but she does live there. Okay. Thank you. Yes. You're welcome. All right. Moving on to the next case for new business. This would be case number 25-2135, the City of Dunedin versus Eric Doerr, concerning the property located at 2438 Baywood Drive West. Who is presenting on that? I am, sir. Good afternoon, board members. My name is Rachel Laurel, co-compliance inspector for the City of Dunedin. I will be presenting PowerPoint presentation for the property at 2438 Baywood Drive West. Case number 25-2135. This is a declaration of violation. The respondent is Eric Doerr. He resides at 821 Pine Tree Road, Winter Park, Florida, 32789. Zoning is single-family home in R60 zoning district. Number of violations is 1 of DCO Section 105-27.1.1.1, paren F, paren 1, and paren 5. Zoning district design standards, site standards for housing and duplexes, utility trailers, boats, recreational vehicles, and other recreational equipment standards. Subsection 1, utility trailers, boat, recreational equipment, and recreational vehicles may not be parked or stored in any portion of the front yard to include the buildable area unless actual loading or unloading with four-hour maximum is taking place. Subsection 5, no utility trailer, boats, or other recreational equipment. And recreational vehicles shall be located within the minimum setbacks established in Chapter 103 zoning unless screened by a six-foot privacy fence. A notice of violation was posted to the property and City Hall and a copy was sent certified mail to the owner on December 11, 2025 with a compliance date of December 29, 2025. The certified mail delivery confirmation for the notice of violation was returned to the office on December 24, 2025 at 12.48 p.m. A notice of hearing was posted to the property and City Hall and a copy was sent certified mail to the owner on January 21, 2026. And that certified mail delivery confirmation for the notice of hearing is still attempting delivery to the owner. On December 3, 2025, you can see a large boat trailer in the front yard and partially in the street in front of the residence. Re-inspection was done on December 10. You can see the trailer is still in the same location in the front yard and in the street and also in very close proximity to the fire hydrant. So on December 11, 2025, a notice of violation was posted to the front door. Here's the picture of the trailer. And here's the picture of the affidavit of posting and notice of violation posted to the front door. Here's a close-up picture of the notice of violation. And here's the banner page for the certified mail for the notice of violation and the return mail on December 24, 2025. A re-inspection was done on December 29, 2025. The trailer is still in the front yard and in the street. And also January 20, 2026, the trailer has not been moved. And you can see how close it is to the fire hydrant. So this trailer has been in this location since December 3 to January 21. And this is the day of my posting of notice of hearing. You can see the trailer has been removed. Here's a picture of the driveway. The trailer has been completely removed from the property. And here's the affidavit of posting and the notice of today's hearing posted to the front door. And here's a close-up picture of the affidavit of posting and notice of hearing. The banner page to the certified mail for the notice of hearing. And this is the printout from the USPS certified mail website showing it looks like the mail is going to be coming back as of yesterday. So I will now leave the board to deliberate. Questions for the inspector first, please. Jeremy Reynolds, counsel. What about this one? The facts are a little bit different here, but you have noticed literally at 1238 on Christmas Eve with a compliance date of December 29. Is that sufficient? So here we didn't have a successful delivery of the mail for whatever reason it may be. I checked our mailing address and the mailing address that we used, and it was correct under the state statute. Basically, if any notice sent by certified mail is not signed, within 30 days after the mailing, the notice may be provided by the additional steps, which is one of them is the posting of that notice on the property. So we've taken that additional step of posting the notice of the property. And I'm pretty sure this is standard procedure for the city to always take that additional step, regardless of whether or not we get that signed, certified mail back. Well, if memory serves me correctly, and you and I have discussed this particular case in the past, there was a case here, I want to say it was 2016, 2018, very similar situation where the court said that he was given less than five days to come into compliance and that wasn't enough time. That may not be an issue here. Am I correct in understanding that the trailer's now been removed? It's been removed as of January 21st. My notice of violation was posted on December 11th. Yeah, that's correct. So we have a posting on December 11th and a compliance date for December 29th, if I'm not mistaken. Yes. So the issue is the amount of time that they were not in compliance, but they're currently in compliance now, correct? Correct. Okay. So I'm requesting a declaration of violation. Okay. There's someone residing in the home. Oh, okay. But they're just not signing for it. I've seen them physically. And we haven't heard anything from them. I have not heard anything. But somebody is in the home. But it's an obligation of the property owner to update their mailing address. Yeah. Because we can only go so far when it comes to... Yeah, I remember in the case I'm thinking, I remember that the respondent was a company. So in that case, I'm pretty sure, and I don't have it in front of me, I'm pretty sure that notice was delivered. There was a bit of an issue of delay with the delivery, but it was indeed delivered. And in this case, we haven't been able to deliver it. So we've taken that additional step of posting that notice on the front door. And also at City Hall. At City Hall. And just to confirm, we have received, we are in compliance right now as to the violation. So that further certifies that they've received some type of notice of this violation and have taken the steps. So it would appear to me that the boilerplate motion number two would be appropriate. In other words, it was not corrected by the date it was supposed to be, but it currently is now in compliance. Is that correct? Correct. Okay, so motion number two. Would someone like to make a motion? Jamie Ballard. I move in case number 25-2135 for the property located at 2438 Baywood Drive. Find the respondent, Eric Doerr, was in violation of the City of Dunedin Code Section 105-27.1.1.1, paren F, paren 1, and paren 5, zoning district design standards. And did not correct the violation on it before the compliance date of December 29th, 2025, but has come into compliance before February 3rd, 2026. So no fines are assessed. As a first-time violator, if the respondent is found in violation of this code section, again, within five years from the date of this order, an immediate fine up to $500 per day may be imposed. Okay, we have a motion. I need a second. Jeremy Reynolds, I'll second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Mr. Gillette. Aye. Mr. Bolduck. Nay. Ms. Ballard. Aye. Mr. Sweetser. Nay. Mr. Reynolds. Nay. Chair Stone. Aye. What's our tally? I'm sorry. That is 3-3. 3-A, 3-Nay. The motion does. So we may proceed. You know, obviously the board is free to continue to deliberate and proceed with another proposal of a motion for this item. Or obviously the board is always welcome to continue the item. So there are a few options there. I have a question. And I'm sorry, just for my purposes, for trying to understand. On the folks that voted nay, I'm just trying to get an understanding of perhaps I missed something in what we were discussing. I'm just curious. Dan Bolduck. Reason for my nay is there wasn't communication with the property owner. Yes, things were posted. We don't know the reason for the trailer. We don't know if the trailer was, in fact, the owner's trailer. There's just a lot of unknowns in order to put in this particular future violation if it happens again. Any other board members which to speak to their vote? I have a question. I have a question. Was there a tag, an active tag on the rear of the trailer? No. So it was not tagged. So the proof of ownership was not definitive. Then it parked in front of the house for seven weeks. It's been there since December 3rd to January 21st. No, I understand that. It was a long time in the same location. Any other board members wish to comment on the nature of their vote? Yeah, for me, it was just, I remember the other case that talked about minimum of five days, maximum of 30 days to come into compliance. I want to say the facts are real, not exactly the same as what we're looking at here. I just didn't feel like they were given enough adequate notice under statute. Thank you all for sharing. So the motion did not pass. Would someone care to make another motion? I have a question for the staff. I didn't hear a recommendation. We didn't get that far. I know. The request was for a declaration of violation. Yes. But I didn't hear a recommendation from staff of the... Because she wasn't given the opportunity to read it in. There you go. Okay. Recommendation for case number 25-2135, violation 1, DCO, section 105-27.1.1.1, paren F, paren 1, and paren 5, zoning district design standards, site standards, for housing and duplex, utility trailers, boat, recreational vehicles, and other recreational equipment standards. Property is currently in compliance. So I'm requesting a declaration of violation. Any further 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. I will say prior to my case being open, I did see a boat on this trailer. And you could see even in my pictures, the boat is now behind the house at the dock. So yes, the trailer, I would say, belongs to that location because it was a big boat with a slide. And you could see the slide in the back on the water behind the property. So I could say that that trailer does belong at that location. I gave them benefit of the doubt at first because it was in the street for a few days for them to do something with the boat. Well, they put the boat in the water and then they brought it back and they parked the trailer in front of the house. Is this a rental property? It's a newly acquired property owner. I think he moved there. It's been by six months though. If there's somebody living in the home, I saw them move around when I put my notice on the door. So it is occupied. I can't confirm whether Eric Doerr is living there or not. Okay. I'll return to what I said a moment ago. I'll entertain another motion since that one didn't pass. Jeremy Reynolds will make a motion to dismiss the case number 25-2135 for the property located at 2438 Baywood Drive West. The reason for dismissal would be a lack of adequate notice without prejudice for refiling at a later time. In other words, they could bring it back if they have evidence of additional violations, but at this point, they weren't given adequate notice for the original violations until we dismissed the case. Counsel, would you care to apply on that? So he's allowed to make his motion for dismissal. You need to speak up, Laura. Yeah. So he's, I'm sorry, this microphone, but he's allowed to make his motion for dismissal. So I just wanted to clarify with the board that under the state statute and the code, the city has taken sufficient steps to provide notice. The city is only obligated to look at the mailing address of the property appraiser website or the tax collector website and send the notice required, the notice of violation, the notice year-end per certified mail. If that certified mail is not delivered or is not returned back, the city then has the additional steps of publishing that notice at city hall and posting it at the property. The city has taken those two additional steps under the statute. So it is, in my opinion, that there has been sufficient notice has been produced and given. And just wanted to reiterate for this case, we are in front of a case that it is compliant. So this case has come into compliance for this violation. So the purposes of your motion would only be for establishing that repeat violation status. Okay. So I just wanted to reiterate that fact that we may forget because, you know, I myself didn't catch that firsthand. So I just wanted to reiterate that the trailer has been removed, correct? Correct. And we're here to accept that compliance and to establish this for repeat violation purposes. Well, I think it was a motion. So the next step would be to ask for a second. What we have before us is a motion to dismiss. Based on what Mr. Reynolds believes is not sufficient notice, counsel has opined otherwise. So the next step would be to ask for a second for the motion. Dan Bolduc, I second the motion. Okay. Roll call. Mr. Gillette. Nay. Mr. Bolduc. Aye. Ms. Ballard. Nay. Mr. Sweetser. Mr. Reynolds. Aye. Chair Stone. Nay. And that's a three to three. Okay. I'll entertain another motion. Dan Bolduc. Please. I move in case number 25-2135, City v. Eric Doerr for the property located at 2438 Baywood Drive West. Find the respondent, Eric Doerr, was in violation of the City of Dunedin. Code sections DCO section 105-27.1.1.1.1, paren F, paren 1, and paren 5, and did not correct the violation on or before the compliance date of December 29th, 2025, but has come into compliance before February 3rd, 2026. So no fines are assessed as a first-time violator if the respondent is found in violation of Code section DCO section 105-27.1.1.1, paren F, paren 1, and paren 5. Again, within five years from the date of this order, an immediate fine of up to $100 per day may be imposed. Thank you. We have a motion. I need a second. Jamie Ballard. I'll second that. Thank you. Roll call, please. Mr. Gillette. Aye. Mr. Boldock. Aye. Ms. Ballard. Aye. Mr. Sweetser. Aye. Mr. Reynolds. Chair Stone. Aye. And the motion passes at an orderable issue. Thank you. Moving on to the last case of new business, case number 25-2099, the City of Dunedin v. Ice and Cream 3 LLC concerning the property located at 828 Highland Avenue in Dunedin. Who is speaking to that? Ms. Gilbert. Michelle Gilbert, Co-Compliance Inspector with the City of Dunedin for case 25-2099 for the property located at 828 Highland Avenue. I'm requesting a declaration of violation. Respondent is Ice and Cream 3 LLC, and the registered nation is Shamir Abba De Paz. Address is 828 Highland Avenue in Dunedin, Florida, 34968. Or 34698. My apologies. In its own D.C. downtown core. Violation is Florida Building Code Section 105.1, permits required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any impact-resistant coverings, electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Notice of violation was sent certified mail to the owners, registered agent, and posted to property and emailed November 24th of 2025 with a compliance date of December 23rd, 2025. It received certified mail confirmation for notice of violation December 3rd on 2025 at 9.35 a.m. The notice of hearing was sent a certified mail to owners, registered agent, and posted to property and emailed on January 21st of 2026. Received certified mail confirmation delivery for the notice of hearing was delivered to the owner January 28th of 2026, 10.24 a.m. And registered agent was also, the certified mail was returned to sender January 27th, 2026 at 8.17 a.m. This is a copy of the SunBiz that shows the registered agent as Shamiri Abidipaz. My apologies if I've said it incorrectly. I received an email from the Chief Building Inspector Plans Examiner Chuck Pick requesting that co-compliance post a notice of violation to the property November 21st of 2025. An email was sent with the notice of violation attached for the owner and registered agent requesting a permit for the unpermitted work inside the garage November 24th of 2025. This is a copy of the notice of violation that was sent certified mail to the property owners and registered agent. It was the same mailing address, so it was sent together at 11.24.2025. This is posted to the property on November 24th of 2025, the notice of violation. And this was the notice of hearing that was sent to the property owners on 1.26.2026 and the registered agent 1.20.26. This shows the notice of hearing that was posted to property on 21.20.26. So this is a garage section that was built in the back. It originally was put in the back, and this is what it looks like. It was supposed to be for storage only. The previous tenants went ahead and constructed an unpermitted bar area inside the garage with seating, which required permits. When they found out that that had to have a permit, they applied for an after-the-fact permit. That sat and sat. So here's record of the after-the-fact voided permit from 2024. It was voided because it just sat there, they didn't address anything, nothing was done, nothing was completed, and then that tenant ended up moving out of the property. So now there's a new tenant in there doing a bunch of renovations and whatnot, and the property owner was told that they needed to have a demolition permit to demo the work that was done inside of the garage, the unpermitted work. And this is a record of the issued permit to return the building back into a garage as originally permitted. And this was done on January 26th of 2026. So since this new tenant has moved in, the owners of the property did the right thing, obtained a demo permit. They're going to remove everything that was done unpermitted, and it was done without one, bring it back to a normal storage, like it should be as the garage. And they said that if the new tenant moving forward wants to do something in the future, they would have to pull their own permit at that time. I will leave it to you guys to deliberate. Am I correct in understanding you that the owner of the property has, in fact, applied for a permit to demolish? He applied for the demo. He had a contractor apply, and it was issued so that they can return it back to the intended use of a garage, not a bar. So what is the issue before us this afternoon? The permit's been approved and issued to demolish the bar? Demolish the inside of the bar that was installed. There was a bar in there. There was, I guess there was a sink, but the sink, I guess, is allowed to stay because it was part of the original, when they originally built the garage with the storage. But as far as anything else goes, they have to get rid of, like, the shelf, all the stuff that they did inside, with the seating and the bar area, the whole nine yards. Okay, but I still need clarification as to what's before the board this afternoon, because I heard you say that the owner of the property applied for a permit. No, a contractor applied for it. Okay. Right. To demolish the bar that was installed by a previous tenant? Back in 2024, yes. So what is the current violation that brings this case before us? They're no longer in violation. They were. It was set to come before the board for doing work without a permit, and then all of a sudden they got their permit last minute, so now we're requesting a declaration of violation. So that if they decide to move forward and do work again without a permit, the owner is fully aware of the consequence. Okay. I understand. Any board members have questions of the inspector? Dan Bolduc. Thank you. Previous owner made the violation. New owner. Tenant. Previous tenant. Previous tenant made the violation under the same ownership? Yes. And now the new tenant is required under the same owner to demo? No. What happened is is the new tenant is not responsible for that demo permit. It is the owner of the property that's responsible for that right now. It's the same owner? That's correct. Okay. Thanks. You're welcome. Other questions from board members, please? Yes, no. If not. I do. Sweet, sir. Question. Since it's been the same owner for taking years, with the lease, alas, the previous tenant and the present tenant, correct? The same owner? Same owner all along. Yes. Was the owner, was he ever in violation with the previous work? Because he owns the property. It's not the tenant. He owns the property, but any work that's done on the property, it's his name on the property appraiser. So, therefore, he's liable for it. Even if the tenant did it, it's the owner's responsibility to ensure that proper permitting is completed. Okay. Yeah. So, the violations was technically with him. What were the dates that they were found? Just recently? That's my... Well, this was brought to me by the chief building inspector and told me that he needed to go, he needed a permit. So, they found that the permit, they found a permit that was expired from 2024. They come to us and say, please enforce on this work that was done back then, and in order to correct it, the owner of the property, ice and cream, they have to remove, and they needed their demo permit to do so. Okay. Thank you. Of course. You're welcome. So, the issue is not the fact that a current permit has been issued for demolition. The issue is that once upon a time, work was done without a permit. It was, yes. Okay. Any other questions from board members? Dan Bull, I just hate to beat this one, but voided permit 11-24-24, what was that permit for? They were trying to get a permit for the work that they did that wasn't approved. So, the permit was issued but then voided? No, it was never issued. It was never issued, and it was never, nothing ever happened. They applied for a permit because they got, I guess, the building department caught them doing work, or one of the guys must have caught them doing work. I don't know. All I know is that their permit was sitting there, and it's expired, so it was voided. The tenant, it says that the tenant moved out, the permit was never issued, review is past the expiration, and if the work is to be done, a new permit will need to be pulled, and the permit had been voided. That was by direction of the chief building inspector. So, it just took a year to catch them? I'm sorry? It just took a year to catch them because they pulled new permits for the new tenant? I guess it took permitting a year to catch them. I guess they got, because they have new people going in there and moving in there now, you know, they want to open their business, and the condition of them getting their business tax receipt is turning this thing back to the intended use, which is a garage for storage, not for entertaining. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Other questions from board members? If none, I'll entertain a motion. Jeremy Reynolds. When was the notice of violation delivered by certified mail? Do you not have that in front of you? No, no, it's not on the screen. Can you repeat your motion again, please? I believe that was December 3rd. Can you confirm that? Yes. Notice of violation was sent to the owner and registered, sorry, sent to the owner, it says November 20, November of 2025. And it was delivered December 3rd? Which was? The notice of violation. Yes, correct, at 9.35 a.m. Yeah, December 3rd with a compliance day of December 23rd, Mr. Reynolds. So, December 3rd is when it was sent or when it was received? It was received December 3rd. It was sent to November 24th, correct? That's correct. Thank you. And I had been holding off hoping that they would do the right thing and fix it, but that didn't happen. So, then I was instructed to move forward with it, so. And I don't want to confuse the board, but just for my purposes, but they've come into compliance, correct? Yes. Yeah. They've since obtained the demo permit to remove the work that was done. And when was that permit issued, just for purposes of, you know, we can have every board member on the same page? That permit was issued on, hold on a second, I have it in front of me. January 26th. That's correct. January 26th of 2026. Thank you. You're welcome. Do you need the permit number? No, not at all. Okay. Thank you. Dan Bullock, I'll motion. I move in case number 25-2099, City vs. Ice and Cream 3, LLC, for the property located at 828 Highland Avenue. I find the respondent, I don't see his name, so we'll say Ice and Cream 3, LLC, was in violation of the City of Dunedin Code Section FBC Section 105.1, and did not correct the violation on or before the compliance date of December 23rd, 2025, but has come into compliance before February 3rd, 2026, so no fines are assessed. As a first-time violator, if the respondent is found in violation of Code Section FBC Section 105.1, again, within five years from the date of this order, an immediate fine of up to $100 per day may be imposed. Thank you. A second? Jamie Ballard, I'll second. Thank you. Excuse me, this is a declaration. It isn't fines. This is not, this is a declaration of violation. This is a declaration of violation. Yeah. So. It's in compliance, and they have the permit. Yeah. Right. And you're reading off motion two, correct? Two. Correct. Two. Yeah, he said if it happens again within five years. Within five years, that's what I heard. Correct. On the day of this order. Yeah. What did the city? I wasn't able to give my, so, yeah. Yeah. So, my recommendation for case 25-2099 for Florida Building Code Section 105.1, permits required. The property is currently in compliance, and 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. So, that's what I heard. Correct. Are we all on the same page? Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. We need a roll call. My second. It was Sweetser. Mr. Gillette. Oh. Aye. Aye. Mr. Bolduck. Aye. Ms. Ballard. Aye. Mr. Sweetser. Aye. Mr. Reynolds. Aye. Chair Stone. Aye. The motion passes, and an appropriate order will issue. I believe that concludes the new cases before us this afternoon. Under item number six, code enforcement board comments. A, I have, I think, one, if I can find it. Following up on our discussion last week extensively about the breakdown of powers between the board and the city manager concerning chronic nuisance properties, the actual ordinance that was approved by the city commissioners in 2014 under a pattern of nuisance activity, failure to correct code violations by the time ordered by the code enforcement board in any order issued pursuant to this code constitutes a pattern of nuisance activity. So if a case comes before us first and the respondent does not comply within the time, the city has the option of pursuing a declaration that it's a chronic nuisance. In other words, failing to comply with this court's previous, this court, this body's previous, previous orders constitutes a pattern of nuisance activity. Thank you, Board Chair. It's all here. We can, we can, yeah, we can go ahead, if that's your preference, add that into the memorandum and provide that. Okay, thank you. Okay, any other board member comments? No? I think we heard the city attorney's comment. You'll amend the memo. Yeah, we've sent a copy to our city manager, and I know that we're happy to set up some internal meetings to, you know, ascertain what are, what are some other options that the code officers want to proceed with, but we're always here available, and our city attorney and city manager are talking closely, yeah. Okay. Does the staff have any comments? No, sir. All right, then our next meeting date will be March 3rd, 2026. Jeremy Reynolds moved to adjourn. Jamie Ballard will second. All those in favor, by voice? Aye. Aye. Okay, the meeting is adjourned at 3.25 p.m. Thank you all. Thank you all.