Okay. We're going to call the meeting to order. The meeting of the Dunedin Code Enforcement Board for today, which is February the 4th, 2025. It is 2 o'clock p.m. We have a 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 and Ordinance 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 this 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 open, 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, Ms. Ballard. Is there anyone present in the room who's here on a matter that is not on the agenda? Yes? No? No? Okay. We'll go forward. The first item on the consent agenda is approval of the minutes from our January 7th, 2025 meeting. There are 13-page documents circulated to members of the board for review. Do I have a motion to approve those minutes? Jeremy Reynolds, I so move. Thank you. A second, please. Second. Thank you. The roll call sufficient or can we just do it by? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. The minutes are approved. Joan, would you swear in the staff and anybody else will be testifying before us today? If you're going to be testifying, please stand and raise your right hand. Joan, we'll swear you in. Thank you. Okay. The third item on the agenda, we have affidavits of compliance on one case. Who's going to be presenting that, Ms. Phillips? Good afternoon, board. Julie Phillips, co-compliance supervisor, and this will be for case 24-314 for sidewalks and driveways for 2602 Bayshore Boulevard. I'm requesting that you accept the affidavit of compliance, and I would also, if the board will allow, like to show you a couple before and after pictures. So if you'll recall, I'm sorry. Technical issue here. Nobody's monitors are on, Joan? Joan, who turns on our monitors? Sorry, they did a little upgrade. Okay. There we go. Excellent. Again, Julie Phillips, co-compliance supervisor, and this was for case 24-314. Sometimes people in the audience and the board himself don't get to see the accomplishments that code enforcement makes, so this is one of them that I would like to share. This is the parking lot at Causeway Plaza owned by Vijay Walvaker. Vijay owns the entire plaza except for the single building retail store, McDonald's, and Mobile Station. The parking lot has been in disrepair probably as long as I can remember. I lived in Palm Harbor for 27 years and drove by it, and this is pretty much what it looked like. Significant potholes, deterioration, just a mess for the first thing that you see coming into our city from the south is pretty bad. This is what it looks like now. It looks amazing. It's been resurfaced. It's been restriped. There are still a couple little things that need to be done. Duke Energy will be removing four poles. There's a couple little things that need to be done, but overall, it's just a real accomplishment, and I just wanted to share it with the board. Thank you. So you're submitting an affidavit of compliance? Yes, sir. Okay. Do we need to make a motion to accept it? So moved. Jeremy Reynolds. Thank you. A second to accept? Jamie Ballard, second. Mr. Gillette. Aye. Mr. Bolduck. Aye. Mr. Walensky. Aye. Ms. Ballard. Aye. Mr. Reynolds. Aye. Chair Stone. Aye. And the motion passes. All business. I'd like to interrupt you for a second. I'd really like to thank Julie for all the hard work that she did on this project. I mean, she's worked at it a long time, had a lot of discussions about it. Thanks for getting it done. Welcome. More to come. That's fine. I'm not sure what more to come means. All business. Case number 24-754, the City of Dunedin versus Robert H. Miller, property at 1940 Canadiana Court. Who's presenting on that? Mr. Miller is here. You were sworn in previously, sir? I did stand up. Okay. So the City's going to present and then you'll have an opportunity to respond. Okay. Okay. So I don't really have anything to present. I can show you a couple pictures. You know, I submitted an affidavit to Robert for non-compliance because compliance really wasn't met. He's been dealing, as we talked personally, with two parents who are very ill. He is the son. The issue at the property was brought on by their son, Mr. Miller, who is working diligently to clean it up. He is here today to ask for maybe some more time, an additional 30 days, which I told him I would support. I normally don't do that after an affidavit of non-compliance, but when I went to his property and saw that he is working very hard to get it done, that is our objective, is to get compliance. So if the board is willing to push this back to next month, and give him the benefit of the doubt that he can get all these items removed, I am happy to support that. So you, what was the original date of compliance that you're asking the board to extend? Originally, a notice of violation was sent September 20th of 2024 with a compliance date of 10-23-24. He did come to the board, or he didn't come to the board, but the case came to the board on December 3rd of 2024, and we gave him 30 days, which was January 3rd. If you like, I have a few pictures where I can show you he's working if you're interested in seeing them. I think it would be helpful to see the progress that's been made. I mean, he's already 30 days past the original compliance date. Compliance date would be then March 3rd? If the board so allowed, March 4th. So originally, this is what the property looked like on September 20th, 2024. He had the two inoperable vehicles, which he did move from the property. There was a significant amount of items that were stored in the front yard, in the side yard. This is to the right side of the home. This was the backyard that the adjacent neighbor was clean about. I think you remember some aerial shots because I'm not tall enough to look over the fence, though I did have Deputy Skypack take this picture because I'm not tall enough to see. I did visit him this morning on the 4th. He's got some trash curbside. All those items on the right side are moved. In the backyard, he's got a lot of the items away from the neighboring property, which was stacked against the fence. So there is a path, a couple little guard dogs there. And he's got a path in the back. The stuff that's under the tarps is what's going to be kept. But he assures me, and the pictures really don't do it as much justice as you do when you first see it. It was very overwhelming. But there is progress being made. So if he can do this within 30 days before leaning the property, I would like to give him that opportunity. So, Ms. Phillips, is Mr. Miller clear on what you expect him to do in 30 days? I believe he's very clear. I'll let him speak for himself. Yes, I'm clear. You are clear. And you think you can complete this in 30 days? Yes. Okay. Bring the microphone closer to your mouth, please. Thank you. So the request before us is to extend the completion date to Matt, what, the 3rd of March? March 4th. Okay. I'll entertain a motion unless there are any other questions from the board. Anyone have a question? No? Okay. I'll make a motion. I have a question before we get to that point. Yep. Go ahead. If we give him a new compliance... Move your hand away from your mouth and put it in the mic. Thanks. Yes, Jeremy Reynolds. If we give him a new compliance date for next month, and he's before the board today, do we run into an issue where if people are here today but not at the next code board, meaning that those people wouldn't be able to participate? I'm not sure anyone else is here on this case today. No, I mean about the board members who are present. If we give him a... Basically, what we're contemplating is continuing this until next month, and I think there's a rule that says no. We're not... We're not continuing... Extending the compliance date. We're extending the compliance date, technically. Okay. Okay. Thank you for the point of clarification. I understand. You good? Yep. Okay. Good. Okay. Matt, did you have a motion? I was going to make a motion to... Go ahead. Just... Should I use a form or should I just say to extend it to 30 days? Well, you have to state the case name and the property location and so on. All right. Matt Walensky, I move in case number 24-754 for the property located at 1940 Canada in Canadian Court. Find the respondent, Robert H. Miller Jr., did not comply with the board's order of violation section 31-1 and DCO section 34-32 by the compliance date of... I think you said it was... March 4th next month. No, that's the extension date. The compliance date... January 3rd. January... October... Oh, January 3rd, 25. The board is now hereby granting an extension of 30 days to the original compliance date to March 4th. If the violation is not corrected by that date, a fine of $250 a day will be imposed until the compliance is met. The respondent is hereby ordered to contact code compliance for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Thank you. We need a second? Jeremy Reynolds, a second. Thank you. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Bolduc? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. And the motion passes and an order will issue. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay. The next case under old business is 24-666, City of Dunedin v. 745 Main Street, LLC, concerning the property located at 1018 New York Avenue. This is a violation of LDC Section 103-60.1. Ready? Okay. I am Michelle Gilbert, City of Dunedin Co-Compliance Inspector, testifying in reference to Case 24-666 for 1018 New York Avenue, Dunedin, Florida. I'm submitting an affidavit of noncompliance today. At the November 5, 2024 hearing, the board ordered a correction of the violation by December 31, 2024, or a fine of $250 per day shall be imposed. I inspected the property January 2, 2025, and found the violation remains. I'm submitting an affidavit of noncompliance to the board for the board's approval. I'm not as fancy as Julie. I just have two pictures showing that the, um, there was one removed and there are two storage containers that remain here. So these will be marked as exhibits? Yes. So I believe there were six, uh, storage trailers and now there's two. There's two now. Yeah. Make a motion? Do you have a question? No, I'm dead. Well, actually, um, the gentleman's here to speak. He wants to request more time. Okay, so the city is requesting an order of noncompliance? That's correct. And who is here to speak for the LLC? Do you want to come up and state your name and also your position with the LLC, please? And speak into the microphone. You got it. Chris Alexander. Um, so my title is CEO of Body Health. We are the tenants there, but I'm also on representing the, uh, the, the company, uh, as I, as I was here in November, uh, in the same capacity. Um, so we, we had six, we've done to two. We bought a building, uh, it's 20,000 square feet. We were ready to go. We, we, we sell supplements. That's our business. And we had to do, uh, proper, uh, EPA and different testing. And we found that there was the potentiality for some benzene. So we've been doing soil and air tests to make sure, because we don't want to put supplements in an area I have. So we, we were supposed to close before the end of the year. We had, we got extensions, we have tests and, you know, so forth. But, um, we're, we're almost there. We just don't have, I didn't get, couldn't get all, all six gone. I got two, four gone. And, uh, my ask again, uh, is for the, uh, just the, uh, a little bit more time. We, we should be just about there. And if we can get the, the, the test to say that we wouldn't contaminate any supplements at all, um, like the levels are low enough and it's going to be fine. Great. Then we get to close. We get to go and go, go, go. And we desperately need the space anyway. So we're very happy, uh, unhappy to leave Dunedin because that's that particular where us is Clearwater. Um, but we, as a company, we're staying and growing in Dunedin. Uh, but the point is, is we're, we've made a good effort to get the foregone and these other two. Um, and my commitment would be that if God forbid the benzene is too high and now we have to start the warehouse search again, I'll go find a place to rent, to put the trailers in the meantime. Like I won't ask for another extension because I'm, I don't want to ask too much. I don't want to overextend my request, but we, we've just kept on, you know, we've, we've put in these, these extensions with a realtor because, oh, heck, it's, you know, we just have these options. So I understand you to say that this would be your final request for an extension, correct? Yeah. Yes, sir. And how much time are you asking for? My ask is for, uh, March 31. 60 days. Just plus or minus. Do any members of the board have any questions for the person? Well, I don't think it'll take that long, but I'm asking. Yes, please. What prevented you from renting space and having them told out prior to the day? Uh, I, it's financial. I had called code, uh, code enforcement prior, uh, when, when I knew it wasn't going to happen. And the suggestion was to, um, come in, you know, that there would be an affidavit of noncompliance, but to come and, and, uh, you know, plead my case essentially. Um, but it, it was, it was financial. Uh, it, we own the property there and we did get the foregone. It was just, if we have to go rent the spot, it's already costing a lot to do everything that we're doing and all the testing and everything. So, I mean, I'm just being transparent. It was no, I guess I could have spent the extra money and done the, the, the whatnot. Um, and I didn't. And, uh, that is true. Okay. Do other members of the board have any questions? Just to interrupt, just to remind the board, you do not have a written form of authorization to speak on behalf of the property owner. I don't know. What's your position with the LLC? So the LLC is the same, uh, parent company as the company that body health, which is, I'm the CEO of. Can you name that company? Bodyhealth.com LLC. And I, if they did not submit it, I'll get back to them today and make sure that whatever they need to do, it's Connie Cripe is the, the person. Okay. So I just wanted to remind the board, but because he doesn't have a written notarized form to speak on behalf of the respondent, whatever decision made today is not his testimony. His testimony is not binding on the respondent. So you can take it under consideration, but it's not binding on the respondent. So whatever you decide to do, you can take his testimony under consideration. That's a decision for the board to make, but his testimony is not binding. Okay. I understand that. He also has represented to us that he does have authority to speak for the respondent. I understand what you're saying. Okay. Thank you. And I'll try to resolve that. Any other questions from the board or counsel? Yeah, I have a question. Daniel Bolden. Is this a, I mean, what is the land use of this property? Is it a parking lot? Well, I can't really see what it is. When we bought the property from Bob, I think, who owned the Energy Conservatory, there was the Enchanted Earth, there was the Energy Conservatory, and then there was that pie-shaped property, which used to have Sunshine Electric and two other buildings on it, all very dilapidated. So we only wanted where body health is, but it was a package deal, and it was a good deal. So we got that. The Enchanted Earth, which was there, with Trevor at the city, we got a grant, and we were able to demolish the Enchanted Earth and have that as an open area. We removed two of the buildings in the pie-shaped. But the question about the use of that property, it's just property. We've gone back and forth on possibly building something nice there, but the company is growing a lot, and our needs are changing and evolving. So not to mention it's a triangle. It's hard to build on a triangle and get the proper parking and get everything needed. So it's been a source of trouble for me, to be honest, because what do we do with it? So right now it's just, like recently I put up some, from Clearwater towing, some no parking signs. I put some yellow chain with some reflectors, because also the people from the neighboring businesses were parking there. So, you know, I was, I want, I don't want it to become some weird thing, which is with the containers, but. Okay. So, so we've heard a request for 60 days. Does the city have a position? All right. I'm going to leave that up to you with what you guys decide. I think that 30s is sufficient. I mean, this has just been dragging on and on. There's other people in the city that also, you know, are asking, why is it taking so long to get rid of these containers? It's a vacant lot that shouldn't have anything on it. But that, and the essential, whatever you guys decide upon, I will support. Okay. So I'll entertain a motion from a board member for either a 30 or a 60 day extension. I can't make a motion. Jamie Ballard, I'll make that motion to extend for 30 days. We have a motion before us to extend the compliance date for 30 days. Do we have a second? Second. Dan Bolden. Mr. Gillette. Aye. Mr. Bolden. Aye. Mr. Walensky. Aye. Ms. Ballard. Aye. Mr. Reynolds. No. And Chair Stone. Aye. And the motion passes. So we will be extending it to, if my numbers are correct, to March 6, 2025. Is that correct? Okay. An order will be issued. Thank you. Thank you very much for hearing me today. Under new business, case number 24-246, the city of Dunedin versus Benjamin Michael Patrick concerning 101 Diane Drive. Okay. Hang on just a second. Well, for the record, why don't you state your name? My name is Phil Dragonetti. I'm attorney representing the Patricks. Okay. Thank you. We'll hear from the city first. My name is Michelle Gilbert, co-compliance inspector with the city of Dunedin for case number 24-246 for 101 Diane Drive. Respondent is Patrick Benjamin Michael. And Alyssa was recently added to the property appraiser as well with the address of 101 Diane Drive in Dunedin, Florida, 34698, zoned R60. There's one violation present at 101 Diane Drive, and it was the Florida Building Code 105.1, permits required. Any owner who 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. A notice of violation was sent certified mail to the owner and posted to property June 27th of 2024 with a compliance date of July 27th of 2024. Notice of hearing was sent certified mail to the owner and posted to property and emailed December 13th of 2024. Notice of hearing was also sent to an address that was found in Burbank, California on December 13th of 2024. Received certified mail confirmation for notice of violation, which was returned to the city July 23rd of 2024 at 3.28 p.m., and notice of certified mail delivery confirmation for the notice of hearing. There was a notice left with no authorized recipient available on December 16th of 2024 at 4.57 p.m., and received certified mail delivery confirmation for notice of hearing. Notice was left with no authorized recipient available on California, December 18th of 2024 at 2.43 p.m. It said return to sender and a reminder left to arrange for re-delivery of certified mail. All the certified mails or any notice of violation or notice of hearings were also emailed to the owner of the property. And this is a timeline of emails and calls that were started from the beginning of May 17th, 2024. There was a routine inspection to find approximately 20 boxes from Amazon blocking the walkway and on the table in front on the front door. There was a trailer parked in the grass with a shed inside and beside the home. Vinyl fence was installed without a permit and a call that was made to the property owner with a message left to them. On the 23rd of May, re-inspection was done and a courtesy notice was posted to the window shutter as I could not access the front door. I also brought co-compliance supervisor Julie Phillips by the property to show her the condition it was in. There was a young man named Eric there putting up together a shed. I asked him if the owner was home and he said no, and then I asked if there was a permit for the sheds and he said that he didn't know. I presented my business card to him and requested that he have the owner call me. On the 30th of May, a shed was dismantled and put away. The owner's wife, Alyssa, was aware that a permit was needed to install any shed or sheds. At the time, there was approximately six sheds being put on the property. On 6-10-2024, a call was made to the owner's wife, Alyssa, for another shed that was being put up without a permit, and it was explained at that time that she would have to either remove the sheds or obtain permits for the sheds. On 6-27-2024, a notice of violation was posted to the property on the shutter over the window due to not being able to reach the front door safely. July 9th, 2024, the owner's wife, Alyssa, let me know over the phone that she had a friend or an assistant, Ferdinand Haag, who does all her work for her, and Alyssa was reminded that the vinyl fence and the multiple sheds, there was an above-ground pool at the time there, and all in the addition that was put on, they all required permits. On July 30th, 2024, a call returned to Ferdinand as he was assisting Alyssa with obtaining permits for unpermitted fence, sheds, six of them, and the pool and the unpermitted addition at the home. October 15th, there was no permits to date for the sheds, the addition for the above-ground pool, or the addition, I'm sorry. There was a fence permit, but they had items to be addressed from August 2024. Someone applied for commercial permits for sheds, and permitting emailed them back stating that they were incorrect. A response from Alyssa stating that they were trying their best to obtain permits, and that she was shocked that she hadn't received any updates from the fence company or anyone else. They had four companies to try to have one, to obtain one permit for the fence. She hired Belt Engineering, who were supposed to be reaching out to the city to find out what was needed. On the 16th of October, an email was sent to Alyssa letting her know that whomever submitted the applications for the sheds did it incorrectly. It was only supposed to be one permit for all of them, and it was not a commercial property. That she'd need a residential addition permit for the permit technicians had emailed her what was needed back on July 2024. On October 30th, an email was sent to Alyssa requesting an update on the shed permit and the addition permit. On November 1st of 2024, the response from Alyssa was the company she hired to handle the addition, had a power outage for over a week due to Hurricane Milton, and there was no permit submitted to date. On the 7th of November, a new contractor, Total Quality Fence, submitted a fence permit, and Ortel Construction, who Alyssa decided to use, but due to additional setbacks to the hurricane, there were some complications there. December 2nd of 2024, an email update from Alyssa stating that the front sheds were removed. At this time, she was already in the process of dismantling and removing all of the sheds that were on the property. She was just getting rid of them all, and she also obtained a fence permit for the fence, so that those were two things that she had already corrected and cleared the front of the home. So she said that the front sheds were removed, and the fence permit was resubmitted for the third time, and she was working on all the other items. On the 9th of December, an email was sent to Alyssa advising that there's still items to be addressed for the fence permit, but all of the sheds had been, had to be permitted or removed, like I just mentioned, and then I stated I couldn't extend it for her any longer. She was, stated that the fence problem had a problem after problem with the person, and she would be back in town to wrap things up. And then she sent me photo evidence December 10th, showing that two more of the sheds were broken down and taken off the property. December 12th, she said all the sheds are down, with the exception of the one that was there before they purchased the property, that all the sheds should be gone by the end of the day, and the fence permit was obtained. She's actively working on the permit for the addition, but it's taking longer than expected. She asked for more time because they're constantly on the road, and that they're doing their best. They have small children also, so it makes it very difficult when they're traveling with the children. So she, every chance she gets, she would reach out. December 13th, an email was sent to Alyssa with a notice of hearing, letting her know that the case had been presented to the January 7th Code Enforcement, will be presented to the January 7th Code Enforcement Board, and also advised her to make sure that the tankless water heater was, that was installed without permits, to add that to the scope of work for the addition that was done without a permit. On the 18th of December, I received email from an engineering firm requesting additional time for Alyssa, a few more weeks, stating that they were just hired. On the 19th of December, I emailed back to the engineering firm, advising that the case will still be brought before the Code Board, and that they would be the ones, the Code Board would be the ones to approve or deny an extension, as the compliance date for this case was back in July 27th of 2024. On January 3rd, 2025, I spoke to the owner's attorney, Mr. Dragonetti, who is here today, explaining that she needs to request additional time, as I could no longer extend the compliance date for this case. On January 6th of 2025, email received from the principal architect, Jensel Iragori, stating that the plans, both architectural and structural, will be done by the 17th of January of 2025. On January 7th, we had the hearing postponed until today, because we could not get a vote on it. January 15th, an email copy of notice of postponement for the hearing to the owner was posted to the property and emailed to the owner. On the 16th, 2025, provided the attorney with three local contractor's names to assist homeowner with compliance, and then February 2nd, an email was received from the homeowner advising that the owner-builder permit BLDR-25-00712 was applied for, and it is in review. It was originally submitted without digital sealed plans and third-party verification, and it was just missing a couple of forms, the owner-builder disclosure form and asbestos advisory form. Since she did come this afternoon, just before the hearing, just to let me know that she submitted the last little piece that was required to get it moving forward more for the review process, and then she had to leave because she had to be with her children, so Mr. Dragonetti will speak further on that. And these are just photos of the, showing the, the, where you see the two arrows. The one that's pointing down is where the, all the sheds were, and the addition, and then the new vinyl fence, but that's irrelevant because it is now been permitted since then. June 24th, you see a little bit closer up where there was other sheds there, and the addition, 26 remains. This was the notice of violation posted to the front door on June 27th, and then you can see December 10th that the sheds on the one side by the fence were gone. The addition still remains. December 13th, notice of hearing that was posted to the front door. Her fence permit was issued on December 13th. Fence permit number is FNCE-24-00323 for the record. This photo was sent to me by Alyssa, showing the addition on the side, showing that the last permit, our last shed was removed, and then it also depicts that there was a unpermitted tankless water heater as well. This is just additional, an additional dress that I had for her in California that I sent her paperwork to, that was returned to me, and will deliberate. So, Ms. Gilbert, is it correct that the permit applications have been submitted now and are under review? Is that the current status? Yes. Permit application has been submitted for review, and it is in review at this time. And how much time does it customarily take to complete a review once all of the proper paperwork has been submitted? With, depending on how busy, like, I can't speak on behalf of permitting. Generally, it's five to seven business days if there's no items to be addressed, but it depends. You know, like, if there's items to be addressed, what happens is, as you know, they have to be corrected and then resubmitted, and it goes back to the beginning again, and then the whole review process starts all over again. So, it can range anywhere from, you know, five to seven days to seven to ten, sometimes up to 30, depending. So, that's why we usually give 30 days once the permit's been submitted. So, I would, my recommendation would be to give them until March 4th of 2024, or 2025, I apologize. That gives them 30 days to get everything together, and because she did submit everything. So, she's on the right path now. Okay. Any board members have questions for the city? If not, we'll hear from the respondent's attorney. Mr. Dragometti. Thank you. So, as you heard, she fixed the other problems last year. Those are more easy problems to fix. Did you speak closer to the microphone? Sorry. I move over here. So, as I was saying, she fixed the easier to solve problems last year. The addition is the big problem. She had that guy that you heard about there hire somebody to build it, who obviously didn't do a good job, but then he died. So, now we can't chase after that guy for causing this mess. We don't know if the structure could be saved. She's trying to get a contractor to figure that out, but regardless, in the meantime, we're getting the permits, because that's what we're required to do, she just came today and signed the last of the documents that are necessary to get that review finalized. So, that's why we're asking for 30 days when we believe that'll be accomplished. With any snafus, in the meantime, that leaves a little wiggle room, as described, to get that done so she can move forward, because she wants to be in compliance. Like she said, she has the children juggling. She goes back and forth from California, so this is not easy for her. Okay. So, both the respondents and then the city are in agreement that we can extend the compliance date to the 4th of March of this year. Is that correct? That's right. And the issue of the homestead declaration probably should be brought to the tax assessor's attention. Yes. Okay. So, I'll entertain a motion from a board member to extend the compliance date. Chair, there was no compliance date yet. This is the first time it's being, there is no. So, we, we didn't. You postponed the case till this month, but you didn't give it a date last month. Okay. All right. So, we're going to set a first compliance date then on March 4th. Okay. Someone like to make a motion, please? I guess that would be me. Jamie Ballard in case number 24-246 for the property located at 101 Diane Drive. I find the respondent, the respondent, Benjamin Michael Patrick, in repeat violation of the city of Dunedin. Okay. Let's try that again. Apologies. Okay. Jamie Ballard, I move in case number 24-246 for the property located at 101 Diane Drive in violation of the city of Dunedin code section 105.1 permits required to come into compliance before March 4th, 2025. If not in compliance, a fine of $250 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. We have a motion. Do we have a second, please? Jeremy Reynolds, I'll second. Thank you. Joan. Okay. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Bolduck? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. The motion passes and an order will issue. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Your Honor. I'm not sure I'm Your Honor, but thank you. Okay. We are revisiting, I believe, the school bus case. Is that correct? The next case on the agenda, 24-789, the city of Dunedin versus Greg Maison concerning the property and the violations located at 1750 Pinehurst Road in Dunedin. Julie, are you presenting? Before you start, is there anyone here for the respondent? Yes. Okay. So you understand the procedure the city will present first and then you'll come forward. Okay. Good afternoon, board. Julie Phillips, code compliance supervisor, and I'll be doing a PowerPoint presentation for case 24-789 and 24-865. The respondent in this case is Greg Mason who resides at 1750 Pinehurst Road, Dunedin, Florida 34698 and this is a single family home located in the R60 zoning district. There are two violations at this property. The first violation is case 24-789. I'll be requesting a declaration of violation because this case is in compliance. It's DCO section 105-27.1.1.1 E1 site standards for houses and duplexes, commercial vehicle standards. One commercial motor vehicle having a gross weight rating of not more than 8,500 pounds, not exceeding 22 feet in length and not exceeding eight feet in height, may be parked in an approved off-street location on a lot in a residential district. Commercial vehicles shall be measured by measuring the outside dimensions of the outside dimensions of the vehicle, including attachments or additions. The second violation is case 24-865, DCO section 105-27.1.1.1 H6 site standards for houses and duplexes, front yard restrictions. Let's take one case at a time. Are you requesting... I'm re... I'm presenting them both together and at the end on the recommendations we can do them separately. Same recommendation for both? No. One will be a declaration and one is not. Okay, so let's do the declaration first. Okay. Because you're asking for a declaration of violation and that violation has now been abated. Is that correct? Correct. Okay, so let's do that one first. Okay. So that is case number 789, the commercial vehicle standard case? Yes. Okay. So, um, Mr. Mason, do you have anything further to say? Would you like to come up? I haven't seen you since last month. Hello. Greg Mason, 1750 Pinehurst Road, the owner of the property. I do have, I'm sorry, I do have a new title with being a motor home, but I do have both copies of the old title and the new title, both stating that they were private vehicles at the time, never a commercial vehicle. So it should never have been a case at all. So in compliance without any charge at all should be applied to this. I'd like to present it to you. Sure. Let's see what you have. Okay. My memory is that when we concluded the hearing last month, there was agreement on all sides that you were going to seek to register this vehicle as a recreational vehicle. They registered it as a motor home or however they code it, which is done, but either way, they're both, there's always registered as a private vehicle, not commercial vehicle. So commercial vehicle standards should not apply no matter what. Okay. So the first document you've given me has a date of issue of January 18th, 2022. And the second document has a date of issue of January 15th of this year. Correct. Both of them with the usage of private, not commercial. The first one has a body style of BU, which is a bus. And the second one has a body style of MH as a mobile home, but both for a private vehicle, never a commercial vehicle. Okay. Okay. So what I'm going to do now is I'm going to ask, um, Joan to mark these as exhibits one and two, if that's okay with you for the record. Absolutely. Okay. So the earlier one will be number one. So the January 15th of this year will be number two, and then we'll circulate them among the board members so they can see it. Okay. And the top one is number one. That was also found in compliance in October of last year as well. I'm sorry. I was also found in compliance with this vehicle being the backyard of in October of last year. Yeah. I think everybody, I can't hear you. Okay. So my understanding is that the city wants a declaration of violation. Is that correct? Yes. If you look at the ordinance, the ordinance defines a commercial vehicle of having a gross weight not to exceed 8,500 pounds. If you're looking at the title, the specs on the title are 17,560 pounds, which is clearly over the commercial vehicle amount. It also can't exceed 22 feet in length, which it's 29 feet long, and it can exceed 10 feet in height or eight feet in height, which is 10 feet in height. So it's clearly exceeds what we allow to be parked on private property. The intent of a bus is a commercial vehicle when it was originally made. So whether they make it into a motor home or not, it's still defined as a commercial vehicle in our ordinance. One question for you, Dan Wolduck. The city of Dunedin doesn't decide whether it's commercial or private. The state does, correct? Ours does. And the title, the title is issued by the state, correct? Correct. Therefore, a bus can be turned into a mobile home. Absolutely. Correct. So you're saying, though, as a commercial vehicle, it exceeds the Dunedin rules of 8,000 pounds. So now that it's registered as a recreational vehicle, meaning a motor home coach, it's legal. It wasn't registered that way before, making it illegal. It's now legal. So now he's in compliance. Yes, he is. That's why I'm requesting the declaration of violation. I was just trying to understand the difference between the commercial and the mobile. Right. We had an extensive hearing last month on this issue, and we were all in agreement that it's not for this board to determine what type of vehicle it is. But it seems as though the city is satisfied now. So what I am looking for is a declaration of violation in the form of a motion from a board member. Mr. Jeremy Reynolds, I move in case 24-789 for the property located at 1750 Pinehurst Road. Find the respondent, Greg Mason, did not correct the violation on or before the compliance date. However, he is now in compliance. This declaration of violation serves as notice of the respondent is found in violation of that same code section again within five years. From the date of this order, an immediate fine of $500 per day may be imposed. I so move. Okay. We have a motion. We need a second. Jamie Ballard, second. Thank you. Joan? Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Bolduc? Aye. Was that aye? Aye. Sorry. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. The motion passes, and the declaration of violation will be noted. Copy sent to you. Thank you. Don't go too far. Oh, he can sit. It's going to be a while. Well, then perhaps you want to be seated. Okay. The second case concerning the same property is case number 24-865, City of Dunedin versus Greg Maison, also concerning the property located at 1750 Pinehurst Road. Ms. Phillips, are you presenting on this also? Yes, sir. So, I'll go ahead and finish my presentation. So, the second violation is DCO section 105-27.1.1.1.1H6, site standards for houses and duplexes, front yard restrictions. For additional front yard parking, residents may improve up to a nine-foot wide area adjacent to the primary driveway. Parking in any other part of the front yard is prohibited. A notice of violation was sent, certified mail, and posted to the property November 15, 2024, with a compliance date of December 6, 2024. I did not receive the certified mail delivery confirmation, and a notice of hearing was sent certified mail and posted to the property in City Hall on December 9, 2024, and January 9, 2025. This was a picture of the bus that was parked in the street and brought before the Code Enforcement Board on October 1, 2024. Compliance was met by removing the bus from the street. However, the bus was not registered as a recreational vehicle. The bus exceeds the weight length and height of a commercial vehicle to legally be stored on residential property. This is a picture of the bus behind a six-foot privacy fence, and when I was doing my inspection to the right of the arrow, you'll see I observed front yard parking. On October 1, 2024, case 24-614 went before the Dunning Code Enforcement Board for a large vehicle parked in the street. The owner, Greg Mason, was present. The large vehicle was moved from the street to Mr. Mason's backyard behind a six-foot privacy fence. Excuse me, Ms. Phillips, didn't we just resolve these? We did, sir, but this was a PowerPoint presentation. That was last month. That was continued because of his attorney, so I think I just need to continue presenting the case so everybody who's not here understands and knows the background of it, if I may. Okay, I think that background would be helpful. I know the two board members were not here. Thank you. On the day of the hearing, Mr. Mason advised me he had registered the bus that day. On October 4, 2024, I sent Mr. Mason an email. Good morning, Greg. At the October 1, 2024 code board hearing, you stated you registered the bus as a recreational vehicle that afternoon. I called the tax collector's office this morning to verify the information. They said that you just renewed the tag and the title still has it registered as a bus. If the bus is going to remain parked on the property, it needs to be registered as a recreational vehicle, as I stated previously, to be in compliance with the city's ordinance. I did not get a response from Mr. Mason. On November 13, I sent Mr. Mason another email and said, good afternoon, Greg. I called the tax collector's office again, and they stated the bus has not been registered as a recreational vehicle. Unfortunately, I will be sending you another notice of violation to get this corrected. In addition, I noticed you have had a vehicle under a tarp parked on the grass next to the driveway. Front yard parking is prohibited. However, you can improve up to a nine-foot wide area next to the primary driveway. If you use mulch or crack shell, a permit is not required. If you choose pavers or concrete, you'll need to obtain a permit. I said in the code section for front yard standards, and again, the commercial vehicle. On Friday, November 15, I received an email from Greg. It says, thank you. Can you please send me the code what's classified as improvements for front yard parking? And he sent me another email and wanted to know who the complainant was for the violations. I sent him what you could do for improvements for front yard parking, a link to drive and access ways, and to driveway construction. I didn't know if he was going to use the mulch, shell, pavers, concrete, so I sent him all the information that I could. What he did use was mulch, and I did cite him for a shell mulch or other loose landscaping used in front yard shall be contained by the property owner. A migration of loose landscape materials in the right-of-way shall be a violation of the code, and for additional parking, residents may improve to a nine-foot space next to the primary driveway parking in any other part of the front yard is prohibited. On November 15, 2024, I posted the property in City Hall with an affidavit of posting and a notice of violation and sent a copy certified mail. And on December 9, 2024, I posted the property in City Hall with an affidavit of posting and request for hearing and sent a copy certified mail. On January 7, 2025, cases 24789 and 24865 came before the Dunnean Code Enforcement Board. The owner, Greg Mason, his attorney, Benjamin Hillard were present. Mr. Hillard requested that the cases be postponed to today's hearing because he stated the notice of hearing that was posted to Mr. Mason's door was in violation of Chapter 162071. On January 8, 2025, I received an email from our attorney stating the notice of hearing I issued previously was in compliance with Section 102 or 162071 for Florida State statutes. I was advised to proceed with a new notice for today's hearing. On January 31, 2025, I did receive an email from Mr. Mason. He stated that the mulch was down if I wanted to come by and inspect it. I wrote him back on February 3rd and said thanks for the email. I went and got a photo of the mulch. It looks good. It just needs to be contained with some SIPA border so it doesn't go into the pedestrian sidewalk or the street. And I also found the tax collector's office to check the status of the bus and was advised that the bus had been registered as Motorhome Coach, which is now in compliance and parked legally on his property behind a six-foot fence. So this is the front yard parking. Excuse me, I observed on September 13, 2024. Again, on October 16, 2024. November 13, 2024. November 15, this is my affidavit of posting and notice of violation. And there's a closer photo of my notice. And this was again the picture of the bus and the grass parking on the left-hand side. On 1118, it was still there. On 1126, it was still there. And on December 9th, I did the affidavit of posting and request for hearing. On December 9th, 2024, the vehicle was still there. Again, on the 19th, the 23rd, the 30th, the 3rd, the 6th. And on January 9th, I posted my second affidavit of posting and request for hearing. And the vehicle was still parked in the grass. It was still parked there on the 22nd, on the 27th. And on the 31st, it was moved. And it looked like from the street, he had started to put down some mulch. So I did get out of my car and it looked like he started to do something. On February 3rd, I went back and it was mulched. It looked great. The only thing that needed to be done was have it contained because when it rained, washouts occur. And you can see a little bit, it's just a little bit spilling already out into the driveway and the sidewalk. It just needs to be contained so it doesn't float and go into our gutter system. And I went by this morning to see if he had contained it, but he had not done it at this time. And I'll let the board deliberate. Thank you. Mr. Maison, do you want to come up? We continued this matter at your attorney's request last month. Are you expecting him to be here today? No, he's not going to be here today. Are you comfortable proceeding on your own without your attorney present? Okay. Thank you. Okay. So you've heard the city's testimony and it seems like this is an issue that can be remedied fairly simply? Yeah. Unfortunately, I did not get her email until this morning. So I will have that border put up tonight or first thing tomorrow morning. Okay. Any board members have any other questions? No? Does the city have a recommendation? Yes, sir. So of course, the bus was in compliance. So my recommendation for case 24865 was one violation, section 105-27.1.1.1H6, front yard restrictions. I'm requesting compliance on or before February 24th, 2025, 14 days from today's hearing. Or given the severity of the violation is minor, I'm requesting a fine in the amount of $150 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Okay. Today is February 4th and 4 plus 14 is 18. 14 days from today's hearing. The 18th. The 18th. Thank you. Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Matt? I'd like to go back and ask the- Can you speak? Ms. Phillips a question. Sure. So you're asking him that he needs to contain that. Could he do that just by removing the mulch up against the concrete sidewalk and the concrete driveway and just lowering it down? Had he done that originally, he probably could. I mean, most people dig it out. In this case, I think he just poured it on top. Right, dig it out so it's deeper to hold three inches of mulch. So, I mean, at this point, he would be better off using some sort of plastic edging or bricks. There's very inexpensive things. You can use the black edging if you just dig it down with a shovel around just so it doesn't come out. I mean, it's very simple, inexpensive things. I mean, he can choose what he wants to do, but just the driveway itself is not going to contain it. Mr. Mason, what is your intent then? Like L-shaped, the driveway. And you don't have an issue doing that within the next 14 days? Okay. Would someone like to make a motion? Ms. Ballard? Jamie Ballard. I move in case number 24-865 for the property located at 1750 Pinehurst Road in violation of the City of Dunedin Code section 105.27.1.1.1H. Order the respondent to come into compliance within the next 14 days, which was February 18th, 2025. If not in compliance, a fine of $150 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. Thank you. We have a motion. We need a second. Jeremy Reynolds. I'll second. Mr. Gillette. Aye. Mr. Boldock. Aye. Mr. Walensky. Aye. Ms. Ballard. Aye. Mr. Reynolds. Aye. Chair Stone. Aye. The motion passes and an order will issue. Thank you, sir. We have one more case on our agenda. Case number 25-1030, the City of Dunedin versus John Harkin concerning the property located at 2482 Tradewinds Drive. Who's presenting on this for the city? Okay. Is the respondent here? No. Good afternoon, board. Julie Phillips, co-compliance supervisor. I'll be doing a PowerPoint presentation for 2482 Tradewinds Drive, case 25-1030, and this is a repeat violation. The respondent in this case is John Harkin, whom resides at 2482 Tradewinds Drive, Dunedin, Florida, and this is a single-family home located in the R-60 zoning district. There's one violation at this property which violates section 34-1 environment offensive accumulation. It shall be unlawful for any person to accumulate, leave, dump, store, or openly on any premises within a residential zoning classification, any building materials, automobile tires, vehicles, and any other articles of personal property which may be seen from the public rights-aways abutting properties for a period of greater than three days unless the storage of such articles on residential premises is specifically allowed under the provisions of the code. A definition of a repeat violation as defined in chapter 162.04, a repeat violation means a violation of a provision of a code or ordinance by a person who has been previously found through a code enforcement board or any other quasi-judicial or judicial process to have violated or who has admitted violating the same provision within five years prior to the violation notwithstanding that violations occur at different locations. On August 13, 2024, case 24-486 was brought before the Dunning Code Enforcement Board by Code Compliance Supervisor Julie Phillips. The respondent John Harkin was present. The board found the respondent in violation of DCO section 34-1 for an offensive accumulation and was fined $500 per day for each day the violation continued to exist. On December 9, 2024, co-compliance supervisor Julie Phillips received a complaint from an adjacent neighbor that Mr. Harkin was building a shed in his backyard against her fence without a permit. The neighbor also stated that the items are starting to accumulate in the front and backyard again. I drove to the location and advised Mr. Harkin the shed needed to come down. I also advised Mr. Harkin he needed to get his yard cleaned or I would be forced to take him back to the board for a repeat violation. This is a picture of the shed that was built in the backyard with no permit against the neighbor's fence. This picture was taken on December 9, 2024 and I went back to the property on December 12, 2024 and the shed in the backyard had been taken down. Since he allowed me in the backyard I was able to see accumulation of items that were in his backyard and again he's in violation of course of items in the front. Mind you we have had the two storms. I think the contents of most of his belongings are outside. The trash was never picked up when he put items curbside for FEMA. That's how it's been sitting. This is another accumulation of the items statutes and different things. He has a friend who owned a store next to not on Main Street and I'm wondering how much of a friend she is. She likes to come over and drop them off because she knows how much that he likes them but she doesn't realize how much trouble he gets into having them scattered all about his property. On January 2, 2025 I observed a storage unit in the driveway. I spoke to Mr. Harkin who stated he and his friends are going to load up all of the items in the storage unit and have it removed. I advised Mr. Harkin I would give him a couple of weeks to get this accomplished. Normally when you're dealing with a repeat violation it starts from the day that you see it because he's been to the code board and because I know he has some mental health issues. I was trying to give him the opportunity to do it since he actually you know paid to have one dropped off. On January 23, 2025 I drove to the location no corrective action had been taken. The property was posted with an affidavit posting, a notice of repeat violation, and notice of today's hearing, and a copy of the packet was also posted at City Hall and sent to him certified mail. This is what the property looked like on January 23, 2025. All the items are still sitting in the front yard. There's a large accumulation. This is my affidavit of posting, and notice of repeat violation, and notice of hearing that was posted on his door on January 23. There's a closer shot of my notice. This is a pile of clothing he threw outside. Again, just items stored all over the property in the driveway. These are the items that are supposed to go in the storage unit. A new trunk arrived that I hadn't seen before. Again, an accumulation of items in the driveway. On January 27, I drove back to the property. I drive back to the property at least twice a week at the board. I don't know if you know that or not, but because he has such a problem property, we go there continuously, one to check on him, one to see how things are going, and it's sad. Things just don't change at his property. There's always an accumulation of more items. I'm not quite sure where they're all coming from, but there's just always more. Again, items stored on the side of the home. They're still not making it into the pack route. Back on the 29th, it looked like a little bit of the garbage had been moved, but not much. Same items are still in the front yard. They're still in the driveway. There's still a huge, large accumulation, and they smell. When you've been dealing with a hurricane, they're coming inside. Mr. Harkin hasn't had anybody come out to fix anything in the house. There's a high stench there. I went back to the property on the 31st. Not much had changed, but it looked like more items had been put in the driveway. I'm still not seeing things that are going into the pack route. I went back to the property on the 3rd yesterday. A new little wagon had ended up in the street I hadn't seen before, and then I went back to the property today. The trash is still there. The pack route is gone, but the items weren't put in the pack route. You can have a pot on your property for 30 days two times a year, and I'm really not sure anything ever went into it. The items are still there. It still smells bad. It looks bad, and I'll let the board deliberate. Questions from members of the board for Ms. Phillips? Yeah, this is Jason Gillette. So on our meeting August 13th, 2024, there was a lien of like 40k. Do we know what the liens are currently? I don't know what they are currently. My guess might be 50,000, but I'm guessing. I want to say 40 or 50,000. Okay. So don't hold me to that. All right. Yeah, I'm just trying to get a big picture of the case. I would say between 40 and 50,000. That's okay. Thank you. Do any other board members have questions of Ms. Phillips? Yes, no. Jeremy Reynolds. Obviously, this is kind of a chronic nuisance problem, and maybe this is more of a question for our attorney. I know that like for uncut grass, we could cut the grass and put a lien on the property for the cost of remediation. How do we do that mechanism in this case? Because clearly us putting a lien on this dude's property is not going to clean it up. So, and that's a great question. Thank you for asking it. We have abated the property in the past. The city's process is to bring it here. It's a repeat violation. It needs to come before the board, and the property owner can either clean it up or they get a lien. So in this case, because it's so bad, because there's such a stench, and because there's so many items left from the hurricane, after this process, and he gets leaned, I will go through the notice and determination of violation nuisance abatement again, where I get with Jennifer Bramley and our city attorney, and we will hire a company and go in and abate the nuisance. It's a lot more difficult because it's owner occupied, and when you're dealing with someone with mental health issues and you go in and take their property, it's difficult. I'm sure you've watched Hoarders on TV. I have done it with him since we've been here. He had to be put in a cruiser, and he had to be detained, which I don't feel good about. I don't enjoy doing that, and when the man comes home, his stuff is gone, and that's what's going to happen again. So I try to wait as much as I can to do that, but it needs to be done, and that's where we'll be going after today's code board hearing. About how long ago was that? I don't have a date, but I'd say maybe two years ago, a year and a half ago. I've been here almost three years ago, maybe a year and a half. Okay. Thank you. Do we know if he had any code enforcement cases prior to your arrival? I'm sure he did. Okay. I mean, I don't know for sure. I'm sure he did. I can't imagine he didn't. Yeah. I follow code enforcement. It's not a good situation to be in. It's not a good situation to be in. It's difficult, and like I said, I go check on him at least twice a week. Sometimes I'll take Michelle and Rachel because I want him to know us, and I offer him alternatives. Do you need help? But he's insisting. He's got friends. He does it. Look, the guy can afford to hire people to put up a shed. He can afford building materials. He can afford to hire a pack rat. He just won't hire somebody to load it for him or remove the items. So you've got to kind of weigh that out a little bit. Well, we've got a great option to, you know, at least finance part of it until he's gone. Okay. Any other board members with questions? So does the city have a recommendation or a request? Yes, sir. So my recommendation for case 25-1030, the violation is one. It's a repeat violation for section 34-1 in defense of accumulation. I'm requesting a fine, the amount of $500 starting at January 23rd, 2025 for each day. The violation continues to exist, which, of course, will cap at 20. And you chose the January 23rd, 2025 date? That's when I posted it, when Mr. Harkin got his, again, I know a repeat violation starts the day that you see it, but because he had a pack rat dropped off, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt like I always do because he has friends coming over to load it and take care of it, but he didn't do it. I'm not even sure he loaded anything, but it did sit there. Okay. So this date is correct? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. I'll entertain a motion. Matt? Matt Walensky. I move in case number 25-101030 for the property located at 2482 Tradewinds Drive to fine the respondent, John Harkin, in repeat violation of the City of Dunedin Code, Section DCO, Section 34-1A, is currently in noncompliance. The respondent shall suffer a fine of $500 per day from January 23rd, 2025 until such time as the property is brought into compliance. The respondent is hereby ordered to contact the Code Compliance Office for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Thank you. Do we have a second? Jamie Ballard, I'll second. Thank you. Joan? Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Bolduck? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. The motion passes and an order will issue. Thank you, Ms. Phillips. I believe that concludes new business for today. We do have some other business. The gentleman in the back? No? Okay. So at our last meeting, we had an election for chair. We did not move forward with an election for a vice chair. Mrs. Ballard has indicated her willingness to serve in that position. I believe, Jeremy, you were also interested. Yes, sir. So we will have a nomination process and it will be by motion and then a second and then a vote. Correct, Joan? Yes. So someone needs to nominate Ms. Ballard first and then Mr. Reynolds. Jamie Ballard, I so move to nominate myself as vice chair for Code Enforcement Board. I'll second that. Thank you. Joan, how do you want to proceed? Not often we have contested elections. Right. No, let me ask the attorney on this. Is it an individual election? Do I do I poll the poll? Yeah, it would be just like a motion. Yeah. Okay. And then you poll. All right. Mr. This is for Jamie Ballard for vice chair. Mr. Gillette, aye or nay? Aye. Mr. Bolduc? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. And Chair Stone? Aye. Okay. That's five to one in favor of Ms. Ballard. Okay. And do we proceed with a second vote? Aye. We've already, we've had a motion to nominate her as vice chair. We've taken a vote to approve her as vice chair. So she's now the elected vice chair of the board, is my understanding. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We have other business. Congratulations. We have opportunity for Code Enforcement Board member comments, city attorney comments, city staff comments, and we have a next meeting date set for March 4th. Does the staff have any comments? No, sir. The attorney? No comments. We've resolved the issue of notices to your satisfaction? Yes. Okay. Thank you for following up on that. Code Enforcement Board members, Mr. Reynolds asked about enforcement mechanisms in cases that are as egregious as the one we last had before us. Do other board members have questions of that nature for the city staff while they're here or other matters? Yes? No? Okay. Jeremy? One, it may be esoteric, it may not even matter. I went back and read our enabling resolution, which outside of term limits really hasn't been revisited since 1994. How often do we review that for compliance with current law? Yeah. Every year? Every year. Every year, yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Comments? No? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to it. What? I would just like to say one thing. I appreciate everybody that responds right away when I ask for a quorum. It really does affect the city attorney's travel time if we don't get a quorum. It affects your time. It affects staff time. It also affects people that are coming to present a case, and they bring an attorney with them. So it is really important for you to respond to me. Unfortunately, today we had two people no show that said they were coming. So it could have been ugly today. I mean, we could have not had a quorum, and that just, you know, reinforces my... Right. And I understand that the... I'm sorry to sound like I'm in a... No, no, no. It's an important point. When I send you that second email, please respond, but... And it's important that people respond timely as well. So if we don't hear from people, we can follow up. Yeah. Thank you. So thank you. We appreciate what you do. Okay. A motion to adjourn? Jamie Ballard, I move. Second. I'll second the motion. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you.