And the party's about to begin, Lisa. Good afternoon. It's 2 o'clock. Everybody looks like they've been here before. Please turn off your digital devices. Remember to speak into the microphone and identify yourself by name. And Ms. Ballard will read the call to order. Okay, good afternoon. The statement of purpose. Before proceeding, I will set forth the purpose of this board. The Code Enforcement Board is charged with conducting hearings to determine whether a violation of the codes and ordinances of the City of Dunedin has occurred. In order to meet the obligation, all parties or their representative will be allowed the opportunity to be heard on matters relevant to the alleged violation. All witnesses offering testimony or presenting evidence will be required to swear or affirm that the testimony they offer is the truth. The City, through its staff, will present its evidence of the alleged violation. After the City has completed its presentation, the respondent shall be afforded the opportunity to present its evidence. Any members of the board, the person presenting the City's case, or the City Attorney may question any witness or witnesses before the board. The respondent or his or her representative shall also be permitted to question any of the witnesses before the board and present brief opening and closing statements if so desired. The board will then openly deliberate, considering only the evidence presented, the law, and common knowledge. By motion, duly made and seconded, discussed and approved by at least four members of the board, an order will be issued. The order will contain findings of fact, conclusions of law, affirmative action to be taken. The order will be forwarded to the respondent by certified mail. We will now continue with our hearings. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is an opportunity for citizen input. I don't see anybody here in the room, so we'll move on. The consent agenda, item 1A, would be approval of the minutes from our last meeting on May 5th. Do any board members have any comments, corrections, edits? Jamie Ballard, I move to accept the minutes as submitted. Thank you. A second, please. Second. Gillette. Thank you. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. And the minutes are approved. The next item on the agenda would be swearing in the staff and anyone else who's going to be testifying this afternoon, if the staff from code would rise. Thank you. The next item on our agenda would be affidavits of compliance. We have one in case number 26-316, the City of Dunedin versus Derek Daniels and Jennifer Cusato, who's speaking to that. It's Laurel. Good afternoon, board members. My name is Rachel Laurel, City of Dunedin Co-Compliance Inspector. I'll be testifying in reference to case number 26-316. The property is located at 2490 Bayshore Boulevard in Dunedin, Florida. At the May 5, 2026 hearing, the board ordered a correction of the violation by May 19, 2026, or a fine of $150 shall be imposed. I inspected the property on May 18, 2026 and found the violation was corrected, so I am submitting an affidavit of compliance to the board for the board's approval. Any questions or comments from the board? If not, I'll entertain a motion to accept the affidavit. Jamie Ballard, I move to accept the affidavit. Thank you. A second, please. Lisa Hunt, second. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Chairstone? Aye. The affidavit is accepted. The next item on the agenda is old business. There being none, we'll move on to item number five, new business. Case number 26-192, the city versus Peter Karub concerning the property at 1396 Overcash Drive. Who is speaking to that? I am. Ms. Laurel? Good afternoon, board members. My name is Rachel Laurel, City of Dunedin Co. Compliance Inspector. I'll be showing you a PowerPoint presentation for the property located at 1396 Overcash Drive, case number 26-192. The respondent is Peter Karub. He resides at 1396 Overcash Drive in Dunedin. The zoning is single-family home in the R-60 zoning district. The number of violations is one of IPMC Section 302.7 Accessory Structures, as adopted by the Dunedin Code of Ordinances. All accessory structures, including detached garages, fences, and walls, shall be maintained structurally sound and in good repair. A notice of violation was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner on March 11, 2026, with a compliance date of March 21, 2026. The certified mail for the notice of violation was returned to the office on March 31, 2026, at 1043 a.m. A notice of hearing was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner on May 20, 2026. The certified mail for the notice of hearing is still attempting delivery as of today, June 2, 2026. An initial inspection was done on February 26, 2026. You can see behind the trailer is a section of fence that's missing slats. And on February 26, I left a door hanger. A re-inspection was done on March 10, 2026, and there was no change to the property. So on March 11, 2026, notice of violation was posted to the property, City Hall, and mail certified to the property owner. Here is a picture of the affidavit of posting and notice of violation. And here is a close-up picture of the affidavit of posting and notice of violation. Here is the banner page in the USPS certified mail delivery confirmation showing that the notice of violation was returned to the office on March 31, 2026, at 1043 a.m. That mail was unclaimed, according to the post office. On March 23, I conducted a re-inspection after the compliance date for my notice of violation showed the violation still existed. April 9, 2026, there was no change to the fence. You can see the trailer was now removed, so you could clearly see the dilapidated fence. On April 28, 2026, I emailed and called the property owner from our utility records, and neither information was a valid contact information for the property owner. So, on April 29, I left a door hanger at the property asking for the owner to call me, or I would have to schedule the property to go before the co-compliance board. May 18, you can see there's no change to the property. On May 11, I did receive a voicemail after hours from a person, I believe his first name was Stephen Karobi, saying that he received my note for him to call me. I returned the phone call on May 12, 2026, and the call went right to voicemail. I left a detailed message on what he needed to do to bring the property into compliance. And you can see on May 18, there was no change to the property. So, May 20, a notice of hearing was posted to the property, city hall, mail certified to the property owner. Here is a picture. I was able to gain access now. The fence that was in the front was removed, so I was able to gain access to the front door. And here is the picture of my affidavit of posting, notice of hearing. And here is a close-up picture of the affidavit of posting, notice of hearing. Here is the banner page in the USPS certified mail delivery confirmation that it is still attempting delivery as of today. June 1st, which was yesterday, for some reason, more slats are now removed from the fence. And the piece of wood that was behind the fence is now in front of the fence. So, now I'll leave it to the board to deliberate. Do a member of the board, any members of the board have questions for Ms. Laurel? Hearing none, do you have a recommendation? Real quick, sorry. Lisa Hunt? So, you haven't talked to them at all. I'm just wanting to make that clear. You just had that one voicemail from someone other than the property owner? Than Peter, yes. Okay. And it was, they left the voicemail after hours. And then when I called the next day, it went right to voicemail. And I never heard, never received another phone call. But he clearly got the message. I don't know why he's removing the slats. Instead of adding about 10 slats, he removed all the slats. Is it, did he leave any message? Like, did he say anything? In his message, he just said, I received your note asking for me to call you. Okay. But he called after hours. Okay. Yes, of course. And then I called back. And just in case I wasn't going to hear from him, I left him a detailed message of what he needed to do. Okay. Thank you. Is this property occupied? I don't know. The garbage cans have been brought in and out. So I'm going to say yes. But I've never seen any activity there, no vehicles there, at least when I drove by. So I don't know. I know it wasn't a Peter who left me the message. I believe the name was a Stephen. Thank you. I don't know his relationship to the property owner. Right. Any other questions from board members? No. Do you have a recommendation? Recommendation in case number 26-192, number of violations is one, of IPMC Section 302.7, Accessory Structures, as adopted by the Dunyden Code of Ordinances, requesting compliance on or before July 2, 2026, which is 30 days from today's board hearing for the owner to repair the fence, or given the severity of the violation is minor, I am requesting a fine in the amount of $150 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion from a board member. I can't make a motion. Someone has to make a motion. Want to do it? I'll do it. Sure. Okay, I believe. Are you going to do it, Lisa? Okay. Lisa Hunt, I move in case 26-192 for the property located at 1396 Overcash Drive. Find the respondent, Peter Karoub, K-A-R-O-U-B, in violation of the City of Dunedin Code Sections 26-192, excuse me, strike that, violation of the IPMC Section 302.7, Accessory Structures, order the respondent, Peter Karoub, to come into compliance by July 2, 2026, before, just start here. If not in compliance, a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until compliance is met. The respondent is ordered to contact the Code Compliance Office for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Thank you. We have a motion. I need a second. I second it. Sweet, sir. Thank you. Catherine, can we have a roll call, please? Yes. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. The motion passes, and an order will issue. The next item on the agenda is case number 26-349, the City of Dunedin v. David Ritter. Again, I have to recuse myself as Mr. Ritter's property abuts our home, and Ms. Ballard will conduct this portion of today's hearing. Okay, moving on to case number 26-349, City v. Ritter-David, 1776 Pasadena Drive, and I will turn it over to Ms. Phillips. Good afternoon, board. Julie Phillips, Code Compliance Supervisor. I will be doing a PowerPoint presentation for 1776 Pasadena Drive, case number 26-349. The respondent in this case is David M. Ritter, who resides at 1776 Pasadena Drive, Dunedin, Florida, 34698, and this is a single-family home located in the R-60 zoning district. There is one violation at this property that violates IPMC Section 302.7 for accessory structures as adopted by the City, or excuse me, Dunedin Code of Ordinances. All accessory structures, including detached garages, fences, and walls shall be maintained structurally sound and in good condition and repair. 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 on April 21st, 2026, with a compliance date of May 21st, 2026, and I received the certified mail receipt back unclaimed on May 12th, 2026. The property was posted in City Hall with an affidavit of posting and notice of today's hearing, and a copy was sent certified mail to the owner of record on May 19th, 2026. This is the banner page, the certified mail that was sent April 21st, 2026, and the mail came back unclaimed return to sender on May 12th, 2026. On April 10th, 2026, I received a call from the neighbor to the west, Mr. Phil Stone. Phil stated that he was doing repairs to his fence and had to stop because the neighboring fence was leaning on his. I asked Mr. Stone if I could come over and take a picture, and he agreed. I phoned the owner of the fence, David Ritter, and got his voicemail. I left David a message regarding the fence on the west side leaning on the neighboring fence. I also advised putting a two-by-four between the fence and the tree to uphold the fence on the north side, is not considered structurally sound or in good repair. This is a picture of the two-by-four against the palm tree in the fence holding it up, and this picture was taken on April 10th, 2026. This is to show that the boards are still not attached. That was also taken on April 10th, 2026. You could still see to his backyard and across the other side on the south side where there's some missing boards on the south side of the fence. This is a large section that was missing as I was looking at the fence where you could clearly see into the backyard, and this is the portion of the fence that was leaning on the complainant's fence. On April 13th, 2026, I received an email from Mr. Ritter stating he has pulled back the fence from the neighboring property's fence and will be replacing it after his patio is completed, probably in the fall. He further stated that he considers this case closed. I posted the property with an affidavit of posting and a notice of violation on April 21st, 2026. This is a picture that was taken on May 1st for a re-inspection to the case that was brought last month for an offensive accumulation, and you can see at that time that the two-by-four was, again, holding up the fence and attached to the palm tree. You can see the boards are still falling off and in disrepair. The fence is being held back with a tie-down strap. If you look at the yellow arrows, you will see a strap, and you will see that it's tied to the palm tree in his backyard, and that's how he pulled it back from the neighboring fence. I posted the property with an affidavit of posting and a notice for today's hearing on May 19th, 2026. We still have the two-by-four between the palm tree and the fence on the north side. On May 25th, 2026, I received an email from Mr. Ritter stating he will not be available for the Code Enforcement Board hearing in June and may not be available in July, August, or September. Mr. Ritter stated he considers this case closed and will make the repairs to his fence at his convenience. Mr. Ritter requested a copy of his neighbor's fence permit and survey, which was provided to him by email. On May 28th, 2026, I phoned the complainant, Phil Stone, and asked if I could come to his home on Friday morning, May 29th, 2026, to take photos, and he agreed. Again, on May 29th, 2026, the two-by-four is still holding up the fence on the north side. You can see why it's doing that, because it's leaning. There weren't any repairs done to his portion of the fence on the west side. You can still see the missing boards, the large portion that's missing, and again, on the other side, the south side, with missing boards to the fence, slats to the fence. And I went by the property this morning, and of course, the board on the north side is still there, so I didn't feel like I needed to approach Mr. Phil Stone to get more pictures if he needed to. They're still in violation. And at this time, I'll let the board deliberate. Okay, board members, do you have any questions? No questions? Hearing none, do we have a recommendation? We do. So my recommendation for Case 26-349, there's one violation which violates IPMC Section 302.7 accessory structures as adopted by the Dunning Code of Ordinances. I'm requesting compliance on or before July 2nd, 2026, which is 30 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 for each day the violation continues to exist. Board members, I'll entertain a motion. Yeah, Gillette, I move into Case 26-349, City vs. David M. Ritter, located at the property 1776, Pasadena Drive, Dunedin, Florida, 34698. The final respondent, David Ritter, in violation of the City Code of Dunedin, IPMC Section 302.7, accessory structures, to come into compliance by July 2nd, 2026. If not in compliance, a fine of $150 per day will be imposed. Until compliance is met, the respondent is ordered to contact the code enforcement compliance officer for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Do I have a second? Ms. Sweetser, second. Motion and second. Any discussion? I'll call for the vote. Thank you. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. That is approved, and motion will carry, and the order will be issued. Okay, we have, under other business, an opportunity for board members to make comments. I'll start. I'm going to be away for the next two months, and given that we only have five people here, we need to think about whether we'll be able to meet and meet the requirements for a quorum. Any other board comments? Lisa Hunt, real quick. I know that I had talked to several of the people here that I was thinking about moving, and it all came back around as if I was not living here, but I am living here. I decided not to move. I just renewed my lease. I still have a love of Dunedin, and I just don't want to go anywhere. I changed my mind. Thank you. Well, that's really good news. Thank you for staying in Dunedin. And other board member comments? No? Does the city attorney have any comments for us this afternoon? No comments from city staff attorney? And the staff? No, sir. Thank you. Okay. So our next meeting date will be July 7th. I would encourage people to let Catherine know as soon as possible whether you're able to make it or not, because we do run into quorum issues during the summertime when people are away. Are there any other business before us? No? Then I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Jamie Ballard, so move. Lisa Hunt, second. All those in favor, by voice vote? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Meeting adjourns at 226. All those in favor, please.