Second, if you're going to be speaking, everything here is recorded, and these mics work best when you really come up and kiss them. If you sit back here and talk, the stenographers are not going to be able to hear your voices. And along those lines, I'd also say that if you are going to be speaking, if you state your name first before you begin speaking, that does make it easier for the people who are transcribing the audio record. Catherine, are you ready? Okay, Jeremy, do you want to read the call to order? Yes, I'm going to call the order of the meeting of the Dunedin Code Enforcement Board. I have no special announcement. Statement of purpose. Before proceeding, I will set forth the purpose for this board. The Code Enforcement Board is charged with conducting hearings to determine whether a violation of the codes and ordinances of the city of Dunedin has occurred. In order to meet that obligation, all parties and the representatives will be allowed the opportunity to be heard on matters relevant to the alleged violation. All witnesses offering testimony or presenting evidence will be required to swear or affirm that the testimony they offer is the truth. The city, through its staff, will present its evidence of the alleged violation. After the city has completed its presentation, the respondent shall be afforded opportunity to present its evidence. Any members of the board, the person presenting the city's case, or the city attorney may question any witness before the board. The respondent and 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 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, and affirmative action to be taken. The order will be forwarded to the respondent by certified mail. We'll now continue with our hearings. Thank you. So we have more people here in the room than we customarily do. The first item on the agenda is an opportunity for members of the public to share any concerns with the board for items that are not on the agenda. Is there anyone here who has something they want to share with us? I'm assuming that the group here are spectators and yes? No, they're for a case. They're for a case. Oh, boy, it's going to be a long afternoon. Okay. Consent agenda. The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from last month's meeting. I'll entertain a motion. First, giving board members an opportunity to offer any corrections or edits. Jamie Ballard, I move to accept the minutes for the June 3rd, 2025 meeting. Thank you. Jeremy Reynolds, I'll second. Thank you. Do a roll call. Do you want to do a roll call? Okay. We'll just do it by motion then. So all those in favor of accepting the minutes from last month's meeting? Aye. Aye. Aye. All those in favor? We're fine. Okay. Folks who are going to be testifying, please stand. That would include city. Anybody who plans on speaking before us needs to be sworn in. I do. Okay. The third item on the agenda would be affidavits of compliance submitted by city staff. Who's going to be doing that? Ms. Phillips. Good afternoon, board. Julie Phillips, co-compliant supervisor. This is going to be a little bit of housekeeping maintenance. If you recall, the address 4082, Tradewinds Drive, former owner John Harkin, the property is under new ownership. The property, as far as all the cases for offensive accumulation, garbage, and rubbish have been brought into compliance. So I'm requesting that the board accept the affidavits of compliance. If you would like to see photos, I brought photos of what the property looks like now. That's totally up to the board. Laura. These are three different cases, the 2020, 2021, 2025. So let's do three separate orders. So we'll introduce three separate. So we need three separate motions? Correct. Okay. All right. I assume your photos speak to all three cases? Yes, sir. Go ahead. I'd like to see them, sure. Julie Phillips, co-compliant supervisor, and this is in regards to 2482 Tradewinds Drive. So a couple of these cases were before my time. This is what the property looked like in December of 2020. This is what the property looked like April 22nd of 2021. This is December 8th, 2022. This is what the property looked like November 2nd of 2023, December 6th, 2024, and February 17th of 2025. There was a quitclaim date for the property in May of this year. This is what the property looks like now. These photos were taken on June 10th of 2025. All of the debris is gone. Front yard, backyard, side, and again, front. Okay. So counsel to the board strongly suggests that we take each case in their order. So why don't we do it oldest first, case 20-415. I see there's a three in parenthesis. Can you explain why? I wasn't here in 2020, but I believe that was for the offensive accumulation, rubbish, and garbage. Okay, so I'll need a motion from a member of the board to accept the affidavit of compliance in case number 20-415. Walensky. Thank you. I move in case number 20-415 for the property located at 2482 Tradewinds Drive to find the respondent, John Harkin, in compliance for correcting the violations and to accept the affidavit of compliance. I need a second. Jeremy Reynolds, I second. Thank you. Mr. Gillette. Aye. Mr. Walensky. Aye. Ms. Ballard. Aye. Mr. Sweetser. Aye. Mr. Reynolds. Aye. Mr. Alexander. Aye. And Chair Stone. Aye. And the motion passes. Okay. In the second case before us, case number 21-63, I'll entertain a motion to accept the city's staff's affidavit of compliance. Jeremy Reynolds, I move in case 21-63 for the property located at 2482 Tradewinds Drive to find the respondent, John Harkin, in compliance for correcting the violations and accept the affidavits of compliance. I so move. I need a second. Jamie Ballard, I'll second. Thank you. Jamie. All right. Mr. Gillette. Aye. Mr. Walensky. Aye. Ms. Ballard. Aye. Mr. Sweetser. Aye. Mr. Reynolds. Aye. Mr. Alexander. Aye. And Chair Stone. Aye. And the motion passes. In case number 25-1030, I need a motion to accept the affidavit in compliance as well. Jeremy Reynolds, I move in case 25-1030 for the property located at 2482 Tradewinds Drive to find the respondent, John Harkin, in compliance for correcting the violations to accept the affidavit of compliance. I so move. Jamie Ballard, I'll second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Mr. Gillette. Aye. Mr. Walensky. Aye. Ms. Ballard. Aye. Mr. Sweetser. Aye. Mr. Reynolds. Aye. Mr. Alexander. Aye. And Chair Stone. Aye. And the motion passes. Okay. We now move on to item number four on the agenda, all business, case number 24-966, the city of Dunedin versus Julian Phyllis Williams concerning the property located at 50 Squire Court. Who's going to be presenting on that? My name is Michelle Gilbert, co-compliance inspector with the city of Dunedin. I am submitting today an affidavit of non-compliance for case 24-966, property located at 50 Squire Court in Dunedin, Florida. At the April 1st, 2025 hearing, the board ordered a correction of the violation by June 6th of 2025, or a fine of $250 per day per violation, violations totaling four violations equaling $1,000 per day. I inspected the property on June 9th of 2025, found that the violation remains, and I am submitting an affidavit of non-compliance for the board's approval. Just on note, the water was active as of June 4th of 2025, but there is still no electricity at this property. If my memory serves, this is the property with the mother and daughter who are co-owners? Yes, sir. And the daughter was inviting friends to squat in the backyard? Yes, sir. Okay, so you're recommending a fine of $1,000 per day beginning when? June 9th. She is here today. She wanted to speak. Sure. Come on up. My name is Phyllis Williams. I am going to ask the board if they would approve an extension for me. I contacted Gulf Coast Legal Systems, and back and forth, back and forth with phone calls. Alexandra was the legal person that I talked to. She was going to help me. She was going to file a partition so that we could get her name off and sell the place. And what happened was she got a new job, and she didn't do what she said she was going to do. And I asked if anybody was there taking her place, and she said no. Nobody was taking her place. So I contacted Bay Area Legal, and I have an appointment with them on July the 8th. The last time you were here, the board made it clear to you that there are two separate issues. Yes, I know there are. So removing your daughter's name from the deed is one issue that we have no jurisdiction over. I understand. We have only jurisdiction over the code violations. So asking for an extension of time because you have not yet secured legal counsel to assist you in removing your daughter's name is a separate issue. Okay. I took out a loan. I was going to get the permits and get the windows in. Unfortunately, that kind of fell through, and they've now charged me double amount of the loan, hidden fees. So I tried. I don't know what else to do. Does the city want to be heard? I'm sorry? Does the city want to be heard? I had provided multiple names for the legal counsel to try and assist. We thought that maybe we could remove her daughter off and then we'd be able to sell it a little easier for her, find someone who would buy it. I provided contractor names for permits, to obtain permits. But I don't know. I didn't. I mean, that's up to the homeowner to follow through for that. I provided information as best as I could to assist. Short of not having, the thing where she's at now is where she needs a permit for the work that they have done there because a lot of those windows are put in and they're not to code. There still might be some areas, because I haven't been in the back of the house probably since the last hearing, that are still not in. And if they are in there, they're put in against code. So I'm at a standstill with what I can do as far as me allowing for more time. We get more time and then it goes down the road again. I'll be happy to assist with it, but I just can't keep on pushing it down the road. If you know where I'm at. I understand. Ms. Williams, have you gotten estimates from contractors as to what it would cost to bring the windows and such? Not as yet. I was trying to get a loan so I would have the money for it. So you were going for a loan before you knew how much money you needed? Yes. How do you know how much money to ask for if you don't know what the cost is? I was trying to take out a loan so that I could pay some of the debt that I have and whatever was left over, I could pay towards windows. Well, your other debts, again, are something outside the scope of this board. I understand that, sir. I was just trying to get ahead of me. I mean, our objective here is to abate the violations. And you've heard the city requesting that because you're not in compliance and we've given you extensions, they're now looking to assess a fine of $1,000 a day. And from what I'm gleaning from your description of your financial situation, that's really not going to provide the incentive we're looking for to get you to abate these violations. Well, my only last hope is with the lawyer, then I can sell the property and be done with it. Walensky, I'd like to add that this, I look back, and this case has been going on since, I believe, January of 25. Do you have a question or a suggestion as to how to move forward? We have a proposal from the city. All right. Does anyone else on the board have questions or comments to the respondent? Just a quick question. I read the notes. Are these $1,000 a day fines, are they capped at 20 days? Yes. Okay. So we're looking at imposing a $20,000 lien on this property. Do I understand that correctly? That's correct. That would be the maximum. Okay. And at what point would the city move to foreclose on that property? Is it foreclosable? Is it homestead exempted? That's a legal question. I can't answer that. Yeah. Counsel? Is that property homestead exempted? Do we know? Okay. Ms. Williams, do you believe you have equity in the property? I'm sorry. I didn't hear you, sir. Do you have equity in the property? Yes. I paid for it out of my retirement. So there's no mortgage or encumbrance on it? No. And you're telling us that you're having difficulty assessing a line of credit or an equity line? That was all my money in that house. No, no, no. My question is, if there's equity in the house, you should be able to find a lender who will loan against the equity. Put myself further in debt. Well, you're the classic case of the farmer who's land rich and cash poor. How much equity do you think that you have in the house? Probably a couple hundred thousand. Which is much, much more than what it would cost you to pay a contractor to bring the property into compliance. Yes. Do you understand that if we put a lien on the property and the city forecloses, you could lose all of your equity? Yes, sir. So I am trying to understand why you're hesitant to go to a local credit union or a bank and obtain what would be a modest loan against the equity and the property to bring this property into compliance. I didn't think of that. I guess I can do that. Have you spoken to any contractors and obtained estimates? Not as yet. Any other board members have any comments or questions? Yes? No? I'm sorry. We didn't say anything publicly, but the council and I shared a glance. She researched the property is homestead exempted, so foreclosure would not be an option. Do you reside in the property? No, I do not. Just your daughter? Yes. How do you hold title? Both are names. When I bought it, I put her name on it. So it's my name and her name. In common or with joint rights of survivorship? Just together and not. If you were to pass, or when you pass, as we all will pass, the property would revert to your daughter? Yes, it would, because her name's on there. Okay. Anybody else on the board have comments or questions? Alexander, my only comment would be, if we know that there is an urgency to remedy the situation, but you don't know how much it will cost, but you are going to go get a loan, there's a little bit of something that doesn't quite make sense there. Like, you should know how much it would have costed you, and that's how you would determine how much of a loan to ask for. I think that what Chairman's trying to do is have you understand that it's a serious situation, but we're not seeing a serious response from you on it. That's my only comment. I took out the loan. But you didn't know how much you needed. Because I needed to pay off some debt, and then what was going to be left over, I thought, could go towards windows. But you didn't know how much you needed for the windows. I did not know how much they would be. I kind of think I know about how much they might be. I've had windows put in my place. Okay. Does anybody else on the board have any questions or comments? If not, we have a recommendation from the city to assess a fine of $250 per day for each violation commencing June 9th. And as Mr. Reynolds has pointed out, these are capped at 20 days. Chair Stone, I have a question. Yes. Is it within the board's discretion to cap the imposed penalties at cost of enforcement? We are limited. We can assess fines that will be converted into liens, and then the city commissioners, upon petition, can reduce the amount of the lien amount. So at this point, the per diem amount is set and already done. Do I understand that correctly? Correct. Okay. And if the city commissioners, in their wisdom, decide to reduce that amount, that's their decision, not ours. Who means? Okay. Okay. I'm looking for a motion. We need to move forward. We have other cases on the agenda. Jamie Ballard. Jamie. I move in case number 24-966 for the property located at 50 Square Court to find the respondent, Julie N. Phyllis Williams, did not correct the violation on or before the compliance date of June 9th, 2025, and to accept the affidavit of noncompliance at $250 per day per violation. Jeremy Reynolds, I'll second. I just, Walensky, the date was June 6th, I believe, not the 9th. Oh, I made my motion to June 6th. Is that correct? June 6th was the date that you guys voted on. Generally, it's the next day, which would be the 7th. It was a Friday and a Monday? Yes, I didn't re-inspect till the 9th. Okay. I was going by my re-inspection date. Okay. We have a motion before us. Roll call, please. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Mr. Alexander? Aye. And Chair Stone? Aye. And the motion passes and an order will issue. Thank you. The next matter of old business is case number 25-1290, the City v. Judith Lane concerning the property at 2016 Woodward Avenue. Who is going to be presenting? Come on up. Good afternoon, board members. My name is Rachel Laurel, City of Dunedin Co-Compliance Inspector, testifying in reference to case number 25-1290. Property is located at 2016 Woodward Avenue. This property went before the board for offensive accumulation. The hearing date was on June 3rd, 2025, where the board found the property in violation of DCO 34-1, paren A, environment offensive accumulation, and DCO 34-32, premises to be kept clean of offensive accumulation, which was supposed to be corrected by June 17th, or a fine of $150 a day would be imposed. I did my re-inspection on June 18th. They were not in compliance on that day. I did another re-inspection yesterday on June 30th, and the property is in compliance. So, I am submitting an affidavit of compliance to the board for the board's approval. Okay. So, we need a motion to accept the affidavit of compliance? That doesn't... Ms. Phillips? Both. Oh, both. On the 30th, yes. So, an affidavit of noncompliance and an affidavit of compliance. Okay. Malinsky. So, this would be motion number three on my sheet? Yep. I move in case number 25-1290 for the property located at 2016 Woodward Avenue. Find the respondent. Judith Lane did not correct the violation on or before the compliance date of June 17th, and to accept the affidavit of noncompliance. Jamie Ballard, I'll second. All right. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Bolduck? Oh, sorry. He's not here. Sorry. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Mr. Alexander? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. And the motion to accept the affidavit of noncompliance passes. Okay. Now, we need a second motion. Property is now in compliance. Jamie Ballard, I move in case number 25-1290 for the property located at 2016 Woodward Avenue to find the respondent, Judith C. Lane, in compliance for correcting the violations and to accept the affidavit of compliance. Okay. You're not looking for a declaration of violation, are you? Okay. So, we have Jamie's motion. We need a second. Jeremy Reynolds, I'll second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Mr. Alexander? Aye. And Chair Stone? Aye. And the motion passes. Okay. Moving on to new business at 2.30 p.m. The first case of new business is case number 25-1267, the city of Dunedin versus Neil and Rosemary De La Torre concerning the property located at 1120 Idlewild Drive North. Who is going? Ms. Laurel? Yes. Good afternoon, board members. My name is Rachel Laurel, Co-Compliance Inspector. This is in reference to case number 25-1267. The respondent is Neil De La Torre and Rosemary De La Torre. They reside at 3398 Clarine Way West in Dunedin. The zoning is single-family home in an R-60 zoning district. Number of violations are one of the Florida Building Code Section 105.1, Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, 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 to obtain the required permit. A notice of violation was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner on May 1st, 2025, with a compliance date of May 31st, 2025. That certified mail for the notice of violation was signed for by the owner on May 3rd, 2025, at 3.18 p.m. A notice of hearing was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner on June 16th, 2025, and that certified mail for the notice of hearing was signed for by the property owner on June 18th at 1.05 p.m. This is a complaint-driven case. The first complaint that I received was back on April 17th, 2025, for work that was being done at the property without a permit. When I arrived to the property, there was a trailer in the driveway, and in the back of the trailer was a tile. It looked like flooring tile. There was nobody at the property. So since I was unsure of any other work that was being done, I posted a stop work order. Here's the close-up of the stop work order. On April 21st, I received additional complaints from the neighbors that people were working through the stop work order. I spoke to a contractor named Kevin, who called the office, to see how to apply for a permit. I explained how to do this and told him to keep in touch during the permit process, which he agreed. On April 22nd, I also received additional complaints from the neighbors that there was still work being done at the home through the stop work order. So I went to the property to see what was going on. I spoke to the owner, Mr. De La Torre, and he invited me into the home to see what work was done. And in the picture, you can see, he told me they removed a door on the left-hand side and installed new drywall between the kitchen and there was a large room in the rear. In that large room, they installed sheetrock, dividing that large room into two smaller rooms that were going to be used for a bedroom, two bedrooms. New drywall was installed in the kitchen with new electrical outlets. And on the other side, this used to be where I believe the refrigerator was. They put a wall up. On the other side is the bathroom. Here's the main bathroom. This is the original bathroom. And here's the main bathroom shower, the original main bathroom shower. This is the kitchen door that was removed, leading into the large room on the other side of that new wall that they installed, dividing that large room into two smaller rooms. Here's a picture of the original master bathroom. This is the shelves in the master bathroom. And here is the utility room that leads into the garage with the sink that's installed. On April 30th, I left a voicemail from Mr. De La Torre asking if the chief building inspector and I could inspect the home. And he said that that would be fine. We inspected the home and found no other additional work was done. I needed to post a notice of violation. So I went back to the property on May 1st to post a notice of violation. And I met with the contractor, Kevin, and an architect. We talked about the notice of violation and that they had until May 31st, 2025, to obtain a permit. I received a phone call from Kevin later that day. And he said that the owners changed their mind about remodeling the home. And he wanted to know what to do. I told him he would need to speak to the chief building inspector. The chief building inspector said he could either continue with the plans and obtain a permit or remove what was installed and bring it back to the way it was before. Kevin said that he wanted to remove the work that was done and restore it back to the way that it was. This is a picture of my affidavit of posting a notice of violation that was posted next to the front door. That was on May 1st when I met with Kevin and the architect. Here's a close-up picture of the affidavit of posting and notice of violation. On May 29th, I received emails with pictures from the neighbors saying there's been extensive work done to the home during this time frame. So, on June 3rd, I left the voicemail from Mr. De La Torre to make an appointment for a re-inspection after the notice of violation. We made that appointment for 6-4-2025. I went to the location on 6-4-2025 with the chief building inspector. The chief building inspector and myself noticed the kitchen and both bathrooms had been demoed. So, this is a picture of the kitchen that was completely demoed from the last time we were in the property. Now there's an additional outlet that's added to that wall. This is the drywall that was supposed to be removed to restore the property back to its original condition. He did remove that one section of wall that was dividing that large room into two smaller bedrooms. But they demoed the utility room that had that sink that was leading into the garage. You can see the plumbing on the left-hand side. And the opening is where the shelves in the master bathroom were. Here they installed new tile in the master bathroom shower. They demoed the whole master bathroom. They demoed the ceiling in the main bathroom, as well as the walls and all the fixtures in the main bathroom. Here's another picture of the ceiling in the main bathroom. And they installed new tile in the main bathroom shower. And this wall where the new electrical switch is, the other side of the wall is in the kitchen, where they installed the new outlet. And this is leading into the main bathroom. So, I checked our permitting records. And it showed that Mr. De La Torre applied for a permit, but that permit was voided because this is not the primary resident for the owner. And a licensed contractor would need to be obtained to apply for the permit. And that was on June 16th. So, I went out to the property on June 16th. And I posted a notice of hearing, which you can see in this picture. Affidavit of posting, notice of today's hearing. And here's a close-up picture of the affidavit of posting and notice of hearing. And I'll leave it for the board to deliberate. Does anyone on the board have questions for Inspector Laurel? Walensky. So, still today, no permit. No permit. And was the work that's already been done, was it done by a licensed contractor or no? Do we know that? I do not know that. And the only way they can get a permit now is to make sure that they have a licensed contractor on that permit. Correct. And, again, this has been going on for two months. Yes, since the end of April. Thank you. Any other board members have questions? No? Is there anyone here for the respondent who wants to speak? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Were you sworn in earlier? Yes, I was. Okay. So, I don't know if the mic can go up any higher. Sir, can I just get your name and address for the record, please? Kevin Wells, 4905 34th Street South, St. Petersburg, Florida. What would you like to tell the board, sir? All right, just kind of recapping, I did speak to the Code Enforcement Board. Excuse me, Code Enforcement. Code Compliance Inspector. Code Compliance Inspector about the project. Prior to my relationship with the homeowners about 15 years ago, I remodeled a property for them that they own in Dunedin. We pulled the permits and got everything done. They're living there. So, they had started another project. They bought another house, and they started another project without permit. So, they gave me a call and said, hey, Kevin, we've got our stuff in a pickle. Could you help us out? When I got there, that day I got there, I was getting my tape measure out of the car. And I guess we had an overzealous neighbor, just to the west of us, who came in and was making a lot of comments about, you know, what are you doing here? You take this back to your own neighborhoods. And so, we had, you know, just avoided the conversation. The car, the sheriff's there. The sheriff's come. I bend over. You all hear me better? Yes. I'm sorry. Should I start over? Sure. Okay. So, the sheriff came, and basically, he just mentioned that the stop work order was there. And so, I got with the code enforcement compliance officer and just let them know, hey, I'm going to be helping the homeowners out, get things in compliance. From that point there, there was a lot of harassment going on to the point that the homeowners decided, look, I just want to fold up tent and sell this house. So, because they were looking to have a business there, I kind of talked to them. I said, listen, I really don't want to see you do that, because at this point in time, they had already dim out the tile on the floors and did some work there. I said, you never want to make your money back. Just turn around and sell it in a house at this point in time. So, they decided, you know, after deliberating, just to, they'll go through with it. But the goal at that point in time was, you know, just not ruffle any more feathers and put the house back like it was. I did see the pictures that was put up there. And when I did, I actually pulled up pictures prior to them purchasing it. And pictures that was prior to purchasing the house, it did not have a door in the kitchen. And so, the goal was to put it back like it was and make it more functional. The kitchen had been changed around and some more than other things. Long story short, I spoke to the code compliance. And I did call to Mr. Chuck as well just to let him know what the plan was. The plan was just to restore it back. After talking with him, they decided to go forward with it and would say, okay, well, we'll do, we'll get things back in place. So, called the architect out there and he gave us some plans to remodel. And so, at that point in time, what you see on the pictures is where things are kind of being put back to what they were, should I say, prior to purchase. The original plans that should be on file at the building department. And so, here we are right now. So, first I need to clarify your standing. So, you're a contractor. Did you ever sign a contract with the property owners? No. What we did, we came out initially just to do some blueprints for them. So, that was the initial plan. Just kind of assess the situation. So, no, we never signed any contracts with them. Okay. Are the owners of the property here today? The owner is here. Does he want to speak? He was going to let me speak for him. Kevin Walensky. Kevin, you're a contractor, but are you a licensed contractor? I work for a licensed contractor. I'm the authorization. Who's the license holder? Gen X. Gen X Builders. That's a company name? Gen X Builders, yes. And that's when you, but you haven't applied for the permit with Gen X's name on it yet? No, the homeowner, we did the permit through the homeowner, and so that was kicked back. And so, no, the plans, the permit hadn't been sent back in yet. Is it the intent of the owner to reapply for the permit with Gen X as the contractor? Absolutely, yes. And when is that occurring? It can occur in time. Basically, we got the letter of sending the code compliance. And, again, it's been a lot going on. I mean, the neighbors have been petitioning with signs in the yard saying about a rooming house, and that was never his intention. So, at this point in time, we were just trying to figure out what the best course of action would be. Okay. Thank you. Walter Sweet, sir. A couple questions. What was your first date working on the project? I mean, I don't know. My first day there wasn't to work. My first day was to meet with the owner, and I don't know the exact day, but probably middle of June, middle of May. Middle of May. Middle of May. And so, at that point in time there, I met with the homeowner to take a look at the project, to see where he was. And at that time, they had dimmed the towel on the floors, and they added those two walls and the electrical that you saw in that picture. Okay. So, next question. You said when you met with the owner, what's the first day you actually started working there? I would have to, I don't know the exact day, but I know the day that we call to the, I called to the co-compliance officer and mentioned to her that, you know, what the intentions was. I don't know what that day was. I would say middle of May, I would guess. April 21st is when you called to question me how to apply for a permit. Okay. Okay. April 21st. My question is, a general question, is that this thing, it started in May, am I correct? Or in April? It was like late April. April 17th. Okay. April 17th. And then the owners were notified to stop. They had to stop work, all that stuff. Where I'm trying to get here is they started working again. Yes. After the stop. Yes. My question is, if that was done by whom, and if that person was licensed or not. So, meaning, I'm trying to, but the involvement of this construction company that he works for, this fellow Kevin, were they involved in the work after the stop work permit? The answer is no. I have to ask him. I mean, the timeline shows that, but I just kind of get clarity here. So, to answer your question, when I spoke to the co-compliance, I told them, look, we're going to put the house back to the original state. And that was, maybe we're commenced maybe a week after that. Pretty good in the original state does not include demoing two bathrooms, which happened after the work, stop work order. He worked through the stop work. Yes. Okay. So, there's... I'm going to cut this line of questioning off because I appreciate what you're saying, but you really don't have any legal standing to come before this board. You're not the property owner, and you do say that the property owner is here. Yes. Is that the gentleman, Mr. De La Torre? So, why don't... Sir, we can't force you to come up here and speak, but I think it would really be helpful. I am not comfortable with that because there's no signed contract. There's no official engagement. There's nothing here. I appreciate Mr. Kevin coming in, but he doesn't have any legal standing to come before us and testify, and there's no documented relationship between the two of you. That is correct. The property owner will either have to turn in a sign, writing, authorizing Mr. Wells to speak on their behalf, or step forward and present their first and last name and address and state that for the board. I did fill out the paperwork before coming up here. I'm not sure if that's legal rights at that point in time. What paperwork are you referring to? It's that form. It just states that he's going to be speaking. Oh, just as someone who's going to be speaking? Yes. Okay. All right. So, we still have a question here as to standing as to whether you can speak, and, you know, obviously, as I said a moment ago, we can't compel the respondent to speak, but I'm not sure at this point we can... Yeah. So, I mean, by this point, Mr. Wells has testified. The board is, has the discretion to consider the testimony when weighing the facts of the case, but it's not going to be binding on the case because you have no authorization, no express authorization by the owner. So, let's do this. Mr. De La Torre, do you want to come up and speak or not? No? Why don't you come up here so what you're saying can be heard by everybody and go on the record, please? Thank you, Mr. Kevin. Have you been sworn in, sir? I'll just swear you in. All right. Yes. So, first, for the sake of the record, state your name, please, and my understanding is that this property is not your residence. That's correct? You don't live there? I'll just say that again. You do not live at this property. No. It's not your residence. Okay. Yes. So, what is your residential address? Tell, please, the clerk. My name is Neil De La Torre. My residential address is 3398 Clarenway, here in Dunedin. And the address, the 1120 Adderwild, I authorized Kevin to, or I hired him to, you know, to do some renovations or alteration of the house. Okay. So, you understand the nature of the complaint against you that you went ahead and did work without getting the proper permits? Do you understand that? Yes, I do. That's why I hired him to do the job. Okay. And earlier, Kevin testified that he did not have a contractor's license, but he worked for somebody who did. Did you hear him say that? No, no. Okay. So, the way the law is written, in order to apply for a permit, it's either you reside on the property or you're a licensed contractor. And you've said that you do not reside at this property. It's not your residence. Correct. Did you buy it as an investment property? Correct. Okay. So, in order to move forward, permits need to be applied for. Yes. But Kevin testified that you do not have a contract yet that he's aware of with the contractor. Have you engaged in negotiations with the contractor over the scope of the work or the amount of the money that it's going to cost? Have you done that yet? Yeah, I think we're done with that. But it's not written down. It's not a signed contract. I'm not sure. Is there a signed contract, yes or no? No. No signed contract. Alexander, what about an estimate? Oh, yeah, yeah. An estimate? Any paperwork? Whether so, indicating this is the scope of work and this is what you're agreeing to? Yeah, we have it. Yes, that's similar. Walensky. Mr. De La Torre. Have you been paying Kevin directly for the work that he's done? Yes. And so you haven't been paying the contractor? You've been paying Kevin? Kevin, yeah. So it sounds like the contractor's not involved is what I'm getting at. So my job was to hire the architect, which we did. So he paid me to get the architect on board. So the architect got the plans together. And again, of course, to get everything lined up for him. So, yes, we were paid and got the architect paid and he's done his job and submitted plans already. So are you telling us that there are plans signed off by the architect? There are, yes. And have they been submitted? They were submitted. But you said it'd be resubmitted. Yes, the plans were submitted in. They were submitted by the owner. This is the chief building inspector. Right. Okay. So we've established that the owner does not reside there. Correct. And the application for the permit has to be submitted by a licensed contractor. That permit was voided because of that. So a permit was issued and then voided? Yes. No. Application was. On June 9th, the application by Mr. Delatore was submitted, but it was voided because he's not able to pull the permit. Okay. So it was submitted but not accepted. Correct. Got it. Okay. All right. So we can make this really simple. The case before us, it's a new case, first time it's been here, and it's a violation of the statute that requires building permits to be applied for and issued. So to move forward, what do we need? We need a deadline for them to submit. Yes. Can I show you staff's recommendation? Do you have a recommendation? Yes. Absolutely. Okay. In case number 25-1267, which is violation of Florida building code, section 105.1, permits required, requesting compliance on or before July 31st, 2025, which is 30 days from today's board hearing, for the owner to obtain a building permit. Or given the severity of the violation is major, I am requesting a fine amount of $250 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. I'll entertain a motion. I have a question. More questions. Go ahead. And maybe it's more appropriate for counsel. Is my understanding that we must give the respondent a reasonable time to come into compliance, or does the violation of the stop work order mean we can jump straight to the 250? There was a notice of violation that was posted on the property giving him 30 days to obtain a permit. So he had 30 days prior to obtain a permit, which he did not. Excuse me, Walter Sweets. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. One person at a time. Say your name, please. To respond to your question, for a member. I'm sorry. Say that again. Directed to your question. Under state law, a code officer must, for a first-time violation, provide reasonable time to come into compliance. It was showing you that the notice of violation was issued. When was the notice of violation issued? May 1st, with the compliance date of May 31st. That is the duty under state law. Okay, because I remember there was a case before this board a couple years ago where they gave a respondent one day to come in compliance, and it was overturned at appeal, saying it wasn't enough reasonable time. That's why I asked that question. Well, given the facts, right, given the facts for a first-time violation, you decide what is a reasonable time for a finding of violation. That's your first order. Okay. That is separate from her duty to provide reasonable time at the time she observes or he observes the violation. And if I may, 60 days have passed now. Yeah, I get that. I don't have any qualms with going straight to the 250. I'm just concerned that if we do that, it's going to get overturned on appeal because of the same case. Sounds like counsel is saying that reasonable notice has been given. And if you look at the inspector's recommendation, they're getting an additional 30 days to comply before any fines kick in. Yeah, I understand that. I don't think it'll hold up in Sixth Circuit. Well, I mean, let's move forward. And if they want to appeal it, that's their choice. Okay, so we have a recommendation from the city. Do I have a motion? Motion, Walensky. I move in case number 25-1267 for the property located at 1120 Idlewild Drive North to find the respondent, Neal and Rosemary De La Torre, in repeat violation of the city of Dunedin code section, forward building code section 105.1. No, Matt, Matt, it's not a repeat violation. It's the first time here. Sorry, in violation, to find the respondent in violation of the city of Dunedin code section number 105-1 permits required and is currently in noncompliance. The respondent shall suffer a fine of $250 per day from date of July 31st, 25 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. Okay, we have a motion. I need a second. Jeremy Reynolds, I'll second. Thank you. Can I make a correction? He mentioned DCO, but it's FBC, Florida Building Code section 105.1 permits required, not DCO. Okay. FBC. FBC. FBC, yes. We'll take that as a friendly amendment. Walter Sweetser, can I just interject something here? This is 90 days, actually, because this started in late April, and you're giving until late July reprieve on the fines. This was, the stop work order was broken and violated. So my question is... These are the neighbors. I think they wish to speak. So my question is... Okay. Okay, okay. We have a motion on the floor right now. We do. We have an outstanding motion. So we might proceed with a vote on that motion. If that motion fails, we may proceed with more questions and deliberations, okay? Okay, before we do that, though, I was not aware that you folks were here on this particular case. Is there any one of you that wants to come up and speak for the group, or are you just here to observe? And we're going to table a motion for now. Hello, Thomas Foy, 1078 Idyllwild. Thank the board for allowing me to take a couple minutes to talk. I know it's a long day already for you. Sir, I'm sorry. Have you been sworn in yet? Can you hear me? Have you been sworn in, sir? Yes. Okay, perfect. Thank you. So I'm flabbergasted to watch the reaction of the property owner in this case, and so-called contractor was not going to speak on that regard. Mr. Dellatore would probably have been a good neighbor if he had purchased that home for that reason. But we've learned that it's there to be a business, 24-hour operation, without him living there. We are very concerned. The neighbors here today, and there are plenty of others that have concerns that couldn't be here because of their jobs or what have you, concerned that our quality of life, our neighborhood is going to change drastically. If you know Idlewild, it's an older neighborhood, but it is being revitalized. People are fixing up their homes, just like this person here, Mr. Dellatore, for a business. We've got playgrounds just adjacent to the back side. You've got bird sanctuaries in the middle. It's kids running around. It's very peaceful. So when you look at a home that is originally three-bedroom, two-bath, I believe, and I know the previous owner, I've been in that home. Amazing what's been done to it already. But three-bedroom, two-bath, I'm thinking 1,400, 1,500 square foot maybe, maybe 100 more. Our understanding is that they were going to turn that into a six-bedroom unit for basically a rooming house, including the garage. I haven't seen any pictures of that, but it's my understanding they started to work on the garage as well, maybe turn it into two bedrooms in there. That is not what the neighborhood is made of and what it should be moving forward. I know some of this is probably not in your purview. That's correct. Wanted to get on the record. But what is on the purview, your purview, is the blatant disregard for how this process works. He didn't even want to come up and talk on his property, speak on his behalf, the stop work order. Look how much work was done after that. From the beginning of this process, what they were doing, coming in the dark of night, doing work, it was apparent they were doing it purposely because these fine people are not out during the day. They're only out during the day. They're not out early morning and that evening, see if work's being done. When they pop in there, nobody's there. So the blatant disregard for this process, please consider every step of the way moving forward what happens with that property because we care just like all of you care and that's why you're in those seats. We care about our street and we want the right quality of life there in the future. Thank you. Well, I appreciate your comments. Does anyone else there want to speak? Yes, come on up please. And I would ask you to limit your remarks to the issue before the board. I'm Kelly Laird. I live on the street too. It's a no outlet street, Idlewild. I'm sure you all know it. But in order for me to come in and out, I have to go past the house. And the reason this gentleman didn't know any of your answers to the questions was because I've never seen him. I've never seen him. And I'm out in and out of the street about 50 times a day. I've never seen that man. I've never seen his truck. I know Mr. Del Torre's car, I know his kid's car, I know his wife's car. We all kind of hang out on the street. There's kind of, you know, I'm probably seven houses from them. So walking the dogs, everything like that, I've never seen him. The work didn't even stop the night you put the sticker on. They were there that night. Lights on, moving stuff in and out of the house. The trailer was dumped two more times. About a month ago, I sent out a picture to the group chat. They had all brand new white cabinets in the garage. They were never stopping work, ever. So that's what upset us the most, is that everybody kind of has, and they're on, quote enforcement is on Idlewild quite a bit. I mean, we've talked five, six times in the last year. They're on there a lot. And they just wait till night. So we're all out sitting on the driveway, and they pull in, and they just go to work. They look over, they look at us all, the son laughs, and then they go in and they work until midnight. So I've never seen that gentleman one time, ever, in 90 days. So I just wanted to let you guys know that that's a little piece of the info. I've never seen him. Okay. Thank you. So I have a question for the staff. What are the penalties or the sanctions for violating a stop work order? Chuck Pitt, chief building inspector for the city of Dunedin. The penalty with the stop work order is $150 for posting the stop work order. There's also four times the amount of the permit fee. The permit fee gets four times. And who has the authority to assess that? I do. You do? Yes. Have you done that in this case? As soon as they apply for the permit, the fees are already there. It's already calculating automatically. Okay. Walter Sweet to answer a question. Yeah, please. Has the PCCLB been involved in this at all? No. I don't get involved with PCCLB. Do you want to explain for the sake? That's a whole other board. I don't deal with that. I understand that. No, I don't bring them in to do our laundry. No. I have one additional question that might put some members of the public at ease. Anybody that knows this can answer it. In that particular address in R60 zoning, is it allowable for short-term Reynolds without a special use permit? I believe so. And I believe they can do a boarding house if there's not another boarding house within 1,000 feet. Okay. Otherwise they go through the— So if he makes application for a boarding house, it's going to have the proper plans. It'll get routed to the zoning department. Right. They'll do the research. If it passes, it passes. Mm-hmm. There's nothing that can be done. Okay. That's how the— So yeah, I just wanted to make sure that they were in a situation where because of the zoning, they weren't allowed to do it. No, it'll go through. If that's what they apply for, it'll go to the proper departments. And if it passes, it passes. Okay. Thank you, Chuck. Ma'am, you have your hand up. Do you want to come up and be heard? Please. And it— Huh? I suppose so. But again, I want to remind folks that what's before us this afternoon is the lack of a building permit. We're not dealing with zoning issues or rooming houses. But come on up and ask your question. You have to tell us your name and where you live first, please. Kelly Foy, and I'm on Idlewild as well. Okay. And speak into the microphone. Sorry. Like me. So, sorry. My question—oh, I'm really loud now. My question is if he utilized this unlicensed contractor before and he pulled permits, why did he not know to pull permits for this one? The other one is right across the street. I assume it was St. Andrew's. Why did we not know? I mean, they're playing dumb. Well, he says permits were pulled. Maybe it wasn't St. Andrew's. Maybe it was another rooming house that they did. But if he did the work and he had to pull permits for it, and now he's saying he didn't know to pull permits. Not buying it. Not buying it. Okay. So, to bring people back to where we left things off, there was a motion that was seconded. We can go forward with a vote on that. If it doesn't pass, I'll entertain another motion. Would you like to speak also? Okay. I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you. My name is Mary McElhaney. I live at 1110 Isle Wild Drive. I live right next door. I did communicate via email. There was a lot of work that went on day and night. There was no permits pulled. Unfortunately, I live next door, so I heard the banging. Very late at night, very early in the morning. There definitely was no permits pulled. They have a home over on St. Andrews Drive, which I believe is licensed for four. I do believe there's six people living there. When they did that construction on St. Andrews, they pulled no permits for that work either. So, my worry is, as a neighbor, is what else are they going to do without pulling one permit? That's my big concern. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Wilson in that row that wants to be heard? No? Okay. So, procedurally, we do have a motion before us. It basically is relying upon the recommendation of the city staff, which was requesting compliance on or before July 31st, another 30 days for the owner to obtain a building permit, or a fine of $250 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. That is what's before us now. Mr. Gillette. If I say nay, is there another motion we can make? We have to go through this motion first. If it doesn't pass, we'll entertain another motion. All right. So, the motion is July 31st? That's correct. Okay. Aye. Mr. Walensky. Aye. Ms. Ballard. Mr. Sweetser. Nay. Mr. Reynolds. Nay. Mr. Alexander. Nay. And Chair Stone. Nay. Do we have four? Motion failed. Motion failed. Motion failed. Four to three. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, is our biggest concern the amount or the time frame? Because for me, I don't think they're going to comply. Okay. Procedurally, you can make another motion. Okay. I move in case 25-1267 for the property located at 1120 Iowa Drive North. In violation of the City of Dunedin Code, Section 105.1, permits required, order the respondent, Nyle and Rosemary Del Torre, to come into compliance before July 15th, if not a compliance fine of, what was the amount on the previous motion? $250 per day. The amount of $250 per day will be imposed until compliance is met. The respondent is hereby ordered to contact the co-compliance officer for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. I so move. I need a second. Alexander, I'll second. Thank you. Can we have a roll call, please? On a Walensky question, so what you're proposing is, you're not liking the July 31st date, you want to go July 15th? Yeah, if it's just a permit. All right. All right. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Nay. Mr. Sweetser? Nay. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Mr. Alexander? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. And the motion passes. Five to two. And an order will issue. Okay. The next case on our list under new business, 25-1416, City of Dunedin versus Appleby Properties, LLC. Concerning the property located at 2616 Wadette Drive, unit number one, who will be speaking? Ms. Phillips. Good afternoon, board. Julie Phillips, code compliance supervisor for the City of Dunedin. And I'll be doing a PowerPoint presentation for case 25-1416. And I will be requesting a declaration of violation. The property is currently in compliance. The respondent in this case is Appleby Properties, LLC, who resides at 16653 Southeast 69th Way. And this is a condo located in the MF-15 zoning district. There's one violation at this property. And it violates, excuse me, violates DCO Section 103-14.4, transient uses within certain zoning districts' prohibition. Rentals under three months in duration are not allowed in residential neighborhoods or other districts, not specifically allowing for such uses. There's also supporting code DCO Section 103-14.6B, prima facie evidence, advertising or holding out a dwelling unit for tourist housing or vacation rental use. The property, I posted the property in City Hall with an affidavit of posting and notice of violation. A copy was also sent certified mail to the owner of record and the registered agent on June 2nd, 2025, with a compliance date of June 12th, 2025. I did not receive certified mail delivery confirmation for the property owner, but I did receive certified mail delivery confirmation to the registered agent on June 5th, 2025 at 1056 AM. I posted the property in City Hall with an affidavit of posting and notice of hearing. A copy was also sent certified mail to the owner of record and the registered agent on June 17th, 2025. This is the property that's located on Airbnb. It's advertised as Honeymoon Island Hideaway Unit 1. And you can see with the arrow, that's Unit 1 at the bottom right-hand corner. And that was taken on June 2nd, 2025. When I went to book the property, I tried to book it July 13th through the 21st, which was eight nights, and I was able to do so. It took me to the payment page. This is my affidavit of posting and notice of violation that was left on the door. And that was also on June 2nd, 2025. On June 16th, 2025, I went back to the website on Airbnb advertised as Honeymoon Island Hideaway Unit 1. And you can see it's requesting, again, a 14-minimum-night stay. I tried to book it June 6th through the 20th, and it took me to the payment page. There was only one review for this property for May 2025, where the person that stayed said they would love to stay there again, and they stayed for about a week. This is my affidavit of posting and notice of hearing that was done on June 16th, 2025. And there's a closer version of my posting. I went back to the site on, it looks like, June 26th, and they did change the site to 90 days, bringing it into compliance. At this time, I'll let the board deliberate. Any questions for Inspector Phillips? Hearing none, do you have a recommendation? My recommendation for Case 25-1416 for one violation, DCO Section 103-14.4, transient uses within certain zoning districts' prohibition, and supporting code DCO Section 103-14.6.B, prima facie evidence. Property is currently in compliance. I'm requesting a declaration of violation. Any future violation of this same ordinance within the next five years by the same property owner will be considered a repeat violation and subject up to $500 per day. And that concludes my presentation. Okay. Is there anyone here for the respondent? No. Have you had any communications from him? I have. I received an email from him today stating he did receive my notices. He was very sorry, and it will never happen again. Okay. I'll entertain a motion. I have a question. Oh, go ahead. First of all, five years ago, I worked for Airbnb as an escalations manager for about six months. Does that present a conflict of interest where I need to recuse myself? No, sir. Excellent. Second question is, do we have a way to send written notification to Airbnb that short-term rentals less than 90 days are not allowed at this address? Because what I know from working for them is if we send them a letter in the mail, they'll never let anybody do that. They have that address again. I'd have to do research into that with Airbnb. I really don't notify websites. I mean, they work for everybody all over the United States. It's something we can look into. I'm suggesting that we make it as part of the board's order to send a written notification to Airbnb that short-term rentals less than 90 days are not allowed at that address. I think for the price, it costs us just to send them a letter. If it prevents a future board hearing, then it's worth it. Well, it's an interesting suggestion, and it would address some of the repeat offenders that come before us on a somewhat frequent basis. I'm thinking of one gentleman in particular. I don't know what we can do procedurally now. Council would have to provide some guidance as to the language of the order, and I'm not sure we can do that at this moment. Yeah, that is correct. I mean, under state law, you're... Laura, you have to speak up. Laura, you're only obligated under state law for the code officer to send notice, mailed notice to the party, and the mailing address listed for that party under the Pinellas County property appraiser. So there's no duty, right? So Airbnb is not a party to this case. Right. And I'm sure there's other platforms out there other than Airbnb that promote and advertise short-term vacation rentals. So great idea. We'll have to look into that, but there's not necessarily any duty on the code enforcement team to mail any type of notices. Yeah, and I'm not from the perspective that we're obligated to send them. I'm just saying that I know under Florida statutes, the board is empowered to issue documents and orders to enforce our code, and if that helps enforce our code and it's the cost of a stamp and a letter, why aren't we doing it? I'm sure this is something we can address with administration, right, and with staff and see if that makes sense. Okay. So I would suggest that council and staff get together at some point after this meeting and review the language of the order. Jeremy's comment is well taken as to requirements and things you can do in addition. It's the same issue I've raised in the past about first-class mail notice and certificates of mailing for people who don't sign for certified mail. Okay. A motion. I need a motion. Jamie Ballard. Thank you. I move in case number 25-1416 for the property located at 2616 Woodette Drive, unit number one. Find the respondent by Properties LLC. C. did not correct the violation on or before the compliance date of June 12, 2025. They are now in compliance. This declaration... Jamie, so this is a first order... No, that's correct. They are in compliance now. So it is motion number two. It's a declaration? Okay. Yeah. This declaration of violation serves as notice that if the respondent is found in violation of code section, that would be DCO section 103-14.4, transient uses within certain zoning, and also DCO section 103-14.6B, prima facie evidence. Again, within five years from the date of this order, an immediate fine of up to $500 per day may be imposed. Okay. We have a motion. I need a second. Jeremy Reynolds, I'll second. Thank you, Jeremy. Roll call, please. Mr. Gillette. Aye. Mr. Walensky. Aye. Ms. Ballard. Aye. Mr. Sweetser. Aye. Mr. Reynolds. Aye. Mr. Alexander. Aye. And Chair Stone. Aye. The motion passes and an order will issue. We have one more case under new business. Case number 25-1427, the City of Dunedin, versus 2002 Fruit Ridge Street, LLC, concerning the property located at 3040 Belcher Road in Dunedin. Ms. Phillips. Good afternoon, Board. Julie Phillips, Co-Compliance Supervisor for the City of Dunedin. I will be doing a PowerPoint presentation for 3040 Belcher Road, Case 25-1427, and this is a repeat violation. Respondent in this case is 2002 Fruit Ridge Street, LLC. The address is 2002 Fruit Ridge Street, zoning single-family home located in the R60 zoning district. Here's one violation at this property. Again, it's a repeat violation for DCO Section 103-14.4, transient uses within certain zoning districts, prohibition, rentals under three months in duration are not allowed in residential neighborhoods or other districts, not specifically allowing for such uses, and supporting code DCO 103-14.6B, prima facie evidence, advertising or holding out a dwelling unit for tourist housing or vacation rental use. Under Chapter 162.04, the definition of a repeat violation, a repeat violation means a violation of a provision of a code 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 the violations occur at different locations. I posted the property in City Hall with an affidavit of posting, notice of repeat violation, and notice of hearing. A copy was sent certified mail to the owner of record and the registered agent on June 5th, 2025. I did not receive the certified mail delivery confirmation from the owner. The owner of the LLC has not updated their mailing address with Pinellas County property appraiser. The mail for their LLC is still going to their former address in Brandon. I did receive the certified mail delivery confirmation for the registered agent on July, or excuse me, June 7th, I should say June 17th, 2025 at 1257 p.m. On July 11th, 2023, case 23-904 was brought before the Dunning Code Enforcement Board for a repeat violation for an illegal short-term rental for code section 103-14.4, transient uses within certain zoning districts prohibition. The respondent was not present. The board found the respondent in violation and was fined $500 per day for five days totaling $2,500, and the fine was paid. During a routine inspection on host compliance, the property, again, was listed on Airbnb. They were advertised as Dunedin Villa Barbecue and Fire Pit Hot Tub, and this was on June 2nd of 2025. When I tried to book the property, it was telling me the minimum stay was only three nights. I tried to book the property from July 1st, 2025 to July 4th, 2025, and it did take me to the payment page. These are the reviews that were listed. There's one that was in April of 2025, and there was one in May. I went back to the website on June 3rd, 2025. Same listing, Airbnb, Dunedin Villa, Barbecue, and Fire Pit Hot Tub. Again, it was listed a minimum three nights in Dunedin, so I tried to book it from August 1st to the 4th. Again, it took me to the payment page. This is my affidavit of posting, notice of repeat violation, and the notice of hearing that was posted at 3040 Belcher Road, and that was on June 5th, 2025. And there is a closer picture of my posting. Again, on June 5th, 2025, Airbnb, Dunedin Villa, Barbecue, and Fire Pit Hot Tub, three nights in Dunedin. I tried to book it June 25th through the 28th, and again, it took me to the payment page. On June 6th, I went back to the website, and they had changed the website to 90 days. I checked the website again on the 25th. It still had the 90 days. However, when you go to the reviews, since I opened the case, you can see how many times it's been rented. So in April, with the yellow arrow, was one time for a few nights. May is in the green. Somebody stayed short time with friends. And then in the blue, you have three stays for the month of June, totaling five. To verify those five stays, this is our host compliance program that I took a snapshot of. It shows you at the first area, that's 3040 Belcher Road. The second arrow, it identifies the LLC and the address. And it tells you that they have three documented stays in June, one in May, and one in April. And at this time, I'll let the board deliberate. I do. My recommendation for case 25-14-27, one violation, a repeat violation, which violates DCO section 103-14.4, transient uses within certain zoning districts, prohibition, and supporting code DCO section 103-14.6B, prima facie evidence. I'm requesting a fine in the amount of $500 per day for the following dates, June 2nd, June 3rd, June 5th, totaling $1,500. And that concludes my presentation. Okay. Before I open it up to the board, I have a question as to how you determined the dates, because you just gave us evidence that they were doing short-term rentals in April, May, as well. And it seems that from what they're charging, if you give them a fine of $1,500 as you're requesting, the man is still making out and knowing violation. This is, what, his third repeat violation? This would be the second repeat. Second repeat violation. Third violation. Second repeat. Okay. Second repeat. I see a gentleman with a hand behind you, sir. Do you want to speak on this case? For the record, state your name and your address. Tom LeVue, 2704 St. Cloud Oaks Drive, Valrico. So, very easy. We'll pay the fine. It was a mistake. One of the owners misunderstood it, changed the calendar on me, on the property manager. So, very simple. I'll pay the fine. Well, we haven't determined the fine yet. She said $1,500. That's a recommendation. Okay. Yeah, I'm just trying to make it simple. You understand the concern that I voiced in my question to Ms. Phillips? What was the question? That she presented evidence to us that there were repeat violations, first of all, and that there were multiple violations before this June date that she's asking for a fine to be assessed on? Those, I don't know if those all, because I'm looking at my calendar right now, and in June I had literally two stays, and one was the person that's actually still there. They're there for three months. So, there was one other person that stayed like five, seven nights in June, but where we're getting three, I have no idea. I do know that when Airbnb says June sometimes, that's just when they left the review. It doesn't mean that that's when they stayed there in June. So, I can't speak to that. I just... Okay. I'm going to ask you one other question, then I'm going to open it up to other questions from the board members. This is a repeat violation. Yeah. The first violation was 23? I haven't got... The first hearing for this property was March 7th, 2023. They came back as a repeat violation July 11th of 2023, and again today. We honestly had a... It was a technical difficulty. I mean, believe it is, you may, whatever you want. It's... We use a software that adjusts all the calendars for Airbnb and VRBO, and we had a glitch in that, and it put it on to three days or seven nights, whatever it was, and I apologize. Well, you're shaking your head, but it was a Guesty software. I know you work for Airbnb. It's very different than Guesty. So Guesty had a glitch with us, and so we got that changed, put it back, and this go around, one of the owners was misunderstanding what it was. So are you the owner or are you the manager? Manager. So you're not going to have any problems going forward. So I didn't get a chance to actually ask my question. I started out with a preparatory statement. So in addition to this property, you manage other properties, so you're well aware of the different requirements and limitations on these short-term rentals, and now here you are representing an owner on their third violation of what's not a new requirement here in Dunedin. This has been two years now, and what we have is, I think, a fairly charitable request from code inspectors for a fine of $500 per day. Okay. I mean, that's what it was. So is the responsibility for the posting, does that rest with you as the manager? I'm sorry? Are you responsible for the postings and monitoring and serving the visitors, or is the owner actually involved? I take care of the guests, if that's what you're asking. You take care of everything. Yes, sir. Well, the guests, I mean, I don't take care of their legal stuff, per se. Okay. Other questions from members of the board? I have a question for the gentleman. You said that you had three guests, one that stayed seven days, and you had two others. How long did the other two guests stay? In June? Yes. No, I had two guests. I had a guest in June that was, he stayed three nights. Okay. And then since the 9th, I've had the same guest there. They're still there now. I'm sorry, say that last part again. They're still there now. Okay. So you've had a guest from June the 9th. Is that guest under a term period to stay 90 days or more? Yes, sir. Okay. So prior to that, prior to your current guest who's staying longer than 90 days, between June 2nd and when that guest checked in, how many nights did you have booked? Between June 2nd and June 9th? Yes. Three nights. Okay. Three nights were booked. Prior to that, we had a guest that was there for six months until April, I believe. The middle of April. Okay. So, I mean, we're definitely listing it at 90 days. And like I said, there was just that mishap. It's fixed now. Well. Won't have any issues going forward. Yeah. I would highly encourage you to stay on top of your listing tools because you're ultimately responsible for what those listing tools do. Right. And, you know, I would even suggest that you possibly contact Airbnb's government regulatory division directly and ask them to impose that permanently on your account so that this doesn't happen again. Yeah. If that's an option, I wasn't aware, but I gave them a call. It is. It is. You may have to speak with a Tier 2 agent, but yes, they can do that. No further questions. Thank you, Jeremy. Anybody else have questions? No? Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Jamie Vallard, I move in case number 251427 for the property located at 3040 Belcher Road to find the respondent of Fruit Ridge Street, or 2002 Fruit Ridge Street, LLC, in repeat violation of the City of Dunedin Code section, DCO section 103-14.4 transient uses within certain donning districts prohibition, and is currently in compliance. The respondent shall suffer a fine of $500 per day for the dates of June 2nd, 2025, June 3rd, 2025, and June 5th, 2025, totaling $1,500. Thank you, Jamie. Do we have a second? Mr. Walensky, second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Nay. Mr. Alexander? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. And the motion passes, and order will issue. Thank you, sir, for coming. Do we have any other business? Do we get to say goodbye to Joan again for the second time? I have a question. Sure. Just regarding the case that just happened. Which? With the Airbnb. This last one. A different that we're going to... Are you asking about the cap on the fines? Yes. I'm just curious as to, it was, you know, $500 for each of those fines. But, you know, clearly, if you're making money with Airbnb, and you're just paying off fines, it's... The cost of doing business. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. Well... A couple of things that came up before us today that, again, you know, in looking at retrospect, even shortening the amount of time for that gentleman to come into compliance to obtain a permit, the options are limited. So... Yeah. I mean, the history of the cap on the fines goes back to some bad publicity that the city received, even though the bad publicity was factually incorrect. And I guess it would be up to the city commissioners to decide to remove that 20-day cap. Can I ask the same question a different way? Sure. Counsel, at what point does the city's public nuisance ordinance kick in in a property like that? I'll have to review Dunedin's public nuisance. I know that there, you know, you have your safety nuisances. You have repeat violations for certain felonies and crimes for properties. I'll review. I'll review Dunedin's nuisance. And that's maybe an option to add in for the notice. In the meantime, I'll email you the case that founded that ordinance. It'll be worth reviewing. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's pretty clear that the remedies that we can impose are pretty limited. And it's certainly frustrating to sit up here, as I have for a number of years, and see some frequent flyers coming before us. And as you said, they just take the fines as a cost of doing business, and we're not creating a disincentive. So, I mean, maybe there are some other remedies available that we can research. Yeah. We'll research adding the, including that requirement for the short-term vacation rentals orders to maybe notify, right, the platforms that are doing the advertising. So, we can work with those template orders and see if provide a little more options for the board. Yeah. Yeah. Well, if memory serves me, correct me. There's some caveat in that public nuisance ordinance where the city manager can authorize to have their utilities shut off. But that's only been done one time. That was the Basel del Sol back in 84. We'll review and see if it actually could even qualify as a public nuisance. On that note. More? I'll make a motion to it. Go ahead. No. I'll second. This is a good discussion. Go ahead. Hey, I wanted some questions answered. Real quickly. I asked, I guess his first name is Chuck, the building chief. Does the city work with the county when it comes to, and I'll give it, for instance, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, oh boy. They have abilities that it doesn't sound like we have here in the city of Dunedin. By, they get the information, and the individuals, whoever's working there, or the owner, get massive fines right off the bat. They can appeal those fines. The job is, and if anybody in the sheriff's department gets involved, which I know the government does, when it comes to arresting people, going into a property, and working on that property. So, I guess my question is a little confusing, is that, so the city in its entirety here just does it all in-house and doesn't want that outside. Because the PCCLB has authority, even with the state above them, to do these things. So, my question is, I see some frustration when we got to the dates of the fines and all that. It's like, wait a minute. And I can see these folks that, they're like going, what? This is going on three months? I mean, Jeremy moved it up 15 days. It's like, what's it take? I mean, because obviously he broke work or soft work orders and continued. We know all that stuff. You know all that stuff. But it's not so much what you know, what can be done. And I've seen it personally, how they handle it, I guess, outside. And then that particular situation, I know firsthand, was a city of Clearwater property. So, the county, PCCLB, they came in and, not with guns, but literally, and the fines and all this other stuff went crazy. And then the city took over. They took over and made sure, like, you know, getting permits and so forth. But the individuals, I mean, one character I know got a $1,000 fine reduced to $500 immediately, and he has a five-year probation period for $5,000, his next violation. It's one individual. How long ago was that? We never know. I mean, I kind of heard the name of the contractor. Personally, the contractor is... If I might add on to that, I think it was up until very recently that the Pinellas County Contractor Licensing Board, the enforcement mechanism of that, was staffed by other licensed contractors. So, council, what you should be taking away from this conversation is that the board is looking for recommendations as to other enforcement options that might be available. Correct. And we'll do that research and get back to you by the next hearing date. I second it. Second it. Did we ever do a voice? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Thank you all.