please silence your cell phones or other digital devices and also we make an audio recording so when you come and speak to the mic state your name first and you have to get up close to the microphone if you sit back here and talk it's not going to pick it up so you really have to come close Catherine do you want to invite some of the alternates here or how do you want to do this okay the first item on the agenda is citizen input this is an opportunity for people to adjust the board matters that are not on the agenda is there anyone here who wants to speak to the board no okay the next item is approving the minutes to our last meeting held on April 7th the minutes were attached to the agenda that was sent to all the board members ahead of time Jamie Ballard so moved Jeremy Reynolds I second that was quick all right thank you mr. Gillette hi mr. Walensky hi miss Hunt hi miss Ballard hi mr. Reynolds hi mr. Alexander hi Joe Stone hi the motion passes um co-chair will uh read the call to order statement of purpose uh before proceeding I will set forth the purpose of this board the code enforcement board is charged with conducting hearings to determine whether a violation of the code or codes and ordinances of the city of Dunedin has occurred in order to meet that obligation all parties or their representative will be allowed the opportunity to be heard on matters relevant to the alleged violation all witnesses offering testimony or presenting evidence will be required to swear or affirm that the testimony they offer is the truth the city through its staff will present its evidence of the alleged violation after the city has completed its presentation the respondent shall be afforded the opportunity to present its evidence 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 or his 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 in the law and common knowledge by motion duly made and seconded seconded the 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 um everybody who's going to be testifying please stand so the clerk can swear you in okay first item item number three on the agenda affidavits of compliance we have one case number 25 there's 2172 who is speaking to that i am come on up okay good afternoon board uh i am rachel laurel city of dunedin co-compliance inspector testifying in reference to case number 25-2172 the property is located at 1518 fairway drive in dunedin florida at the april 7 2026 hearing the board ordered a correction of the violation by april 21st 2026 or a fine of 150 per day shall be imposed i inspected the property on april 22nd 2026 and found the violation was corrected so i am submitting an affidavit of compliance to the board for the board's approval thank you do any board members have any questions of rachel no do we do we need a motion to accept uh 421 i re-inspected 22 yes april 22nd jamie ballard i'll second that thank you roll call please mr gillette aye mr walensky aye miss hunt aye miss ballard aye mr reynolds aye mr alexander aye chair stone aye the motion passes uh the next item on the agenda is all business it's the case number 25-2138 the city versus david ritter i don't see mr ritter here is there anyone here in the room on his behalf no okay um at our previous meeting when this case was before us i had to recuse myself i'm in a butter so i'll ask our vice chair miss ballard to take over this portion of the meeting okay um sorry about that co-compliance supervisor this is in regard to case 25-2138 for the property located at 1776 pasadena drive there were two violations at this property the first was dco section 34-1 for an offensive accumulation and ipmc 302.8 for motor vehicles as adopted by the dunnean code of ordinances at the hearing on march 3rd 2026 the board ordered a correction date of april 3rd 2026 which was a month or a fine of 250 per day for each day the violation continued to exist property was expect or excuse me inspected on april 8th 2026 and the violation remains i'm requesting the board to accept the affidavit of non-compliance i do have pictures of the property and its condition if the board would like to see them board members would you like to see the photos yes please i think we need we need to record that further we need to view it in the base of our decision based upon the the evidence presented mr reynolds make sure your mic is on when you're talking it is okay so this was the property the day before code board which was taken on march 2nd 2026 you can see the accumulation of personal items in front of the property there's accumulation of items in front of the garage door we have the white pvc fencing items under the tarp this is broken sections of the fencing where you can see there's a vehicle stored in the backyard there's also tires a lot of aluminum stacked against the house and yard debris cement bricks again you can see fencing lattice crates a vehicle that i'm sure that does not run leaves this was taken on april 8th after the compliance date 2026 the items remain in the front of the property another shot of an accumulation in front of the property on the way to the door on the side we have the mcdonald's sign we have coolers we have fencing cup piling the tarp with items underneath the white fencing you can see the cadillac to the right which looks to be hooked up i don't know if it's being charged or if it works properly on april 10th i received a call from the complainant whom stated that mr ritter's fence was leaning against his fence so i went out to inspect and you can see that the fence is leaning when i went further to take a picture there's a whole section missing from mr ritter's fence so it gives you a better idea of what's being stored in his backyard more items that were stored in the backyard i went back on april 30th some items had been removed such as the surfboard some of the wood underneath the table but then there were some added items items still remain in front of the garage the entrance to the front door there's new items that were sacked by the front door it looks like bins items still remain in front of the garage door a different shot of the front porch you can see some blocks just some more personal items another shot by the garage and this is on the side of the property you can see there's still a van also stored in the backyard you can see the tip of it over the fence again the fence looks like it was pulled back from the complainants property but you can still see there's missing slats which exposed the backyard and it looks like there was like a tie pull holding the fence back from the complainants property but you can see all the items still in the backyard nothing has changed and that completes my photo presentation thank you board members you have a question go ahead hi lisa hunt um are all the barrels gone i didn't see the oil barrels the oral oil drums that were back there before i don't see any of my photos they could be i was just curious because i had hazmat concerns gotcha okay thank you the boss kind of looks familiar to me is is this property been a uh outside of has this problem been a chronic has this problem occurred with this property before in the past if so just a rough estimate of how many and how long before my time it was uh mr rentals i believe it was 2018 by another inspector who's no longer here but yes it has thought it looked familiar thank you uh in additional to that we made a motion number one uh back on uh april 3rd of this year i'm requesting that you accept the affidavit of non-compliance walensky i move in case number 25-2123 for the property located at 1776 pasadena drive the respondent david ritter did not correct violations of cold sections a number of dco section 34-1 ipmc section 302.8 and uh section doc section 105-27.1.1.1 uh honored for the compliance date uh april 8th we want to use for that when you're inspected yes sir okay uh based the gravity of the violation any uh actions taken by the violator to correct the violation any previous violations committed by the violator this is determined to be a severe violation and a fine of 250 dollars per day per violation is imposed from the date of the the uh inspection date of april 8th until compliance is met the respondent is ordered to contact co-compliance for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order i'm sorry sir if i can make one correction um section 105-27.1.1.1 was marked off at the prior meeting so we wouldn't be using that one and it was for a fine of 250 dollars per day i didn't know that that's okay and one more correction for the case number two five two one three eight just that last digit i didn't hear it but that's it yeah i'll speak louder okay we've got a motion board members do i have a second jeremy reynolds i second we've got a motion and a second i'll call for the vote thank you mr gillette aye mr wolinski aye miss hunt aye miss ballard aye mr reynolds aye mr alexander aye motion passes an order will be issued thank you all um the next case on the agenda is 25-2117 city of dunedin versus sean is it huibner anyone here on that case that's my affidavit and non-compliance was that the first one we heard it's on here under affidavits and compliance and under all business should we just take it off of all business and say that we're done those are different case numbers sorry okay this is 2117 the affidavit of compliance was 2172 okay yes okay good afternoon uh board members uh my name is rachel laurel city of dunedin co-compliance inspector testifying in reference to case number 25-2117 the property is located at 1518 fairway drive dunedin florida at the april 7 2026 hearing the board ordered a correction of the violation by april 21st 2026 or a fine of 250 dollars per day shall be imposed i inspected the property april 22nd uh 2026 and found that the violation was not corrected so i am submitting an affidavit of compliance to the board for the board's approval non-compliance or confused were the violations abated no well then compliance i'm sorry okay i'm submitting an affidavit of non-compliance to the board for the board's approval there has been no change in the condition of the property board members have any questions yeah could you bring this with some time for like you have photographs of recent inspections i have a picture yeah yeah if you just show us a picture that'd be great is this the house that is under construction no no this is the the gentleman that showed up last month that had all the conspirators construction debris he was the gentleman who said he could get it cleaned up in two weeks i believe yes on both cases that picture was taken yesterday yes there's there's additional items added okay the board sets the image submitted by the city code enforcement officer for the subject property the picture is not dated but the officer has testified under oath that the picture was taken on on may 4th of 2026 yes thank you okay do any other board members have questions miss laurel no okay what's the city's request to uh to approve the affidavit of non-compliance okay and the compliance date was april 21st is that correct correct correct or fine of 250 dollars correct correct we're going to do one violation because the other the other um ordinance was a supporting well you list two on the agenda that's why he's asking you you got you you got two dco sections on the agenda one one is supporting of the other it's a supporting one no the but the on the case that's before us right now at this moment it's offensive accumulation which is 34-1 sub a and the second one is uh the need in city ordinance section 34-32 premises to be kept clean of offensive accumulation so you've got two separate sections correct this is separate from the grass which will be addressed okay so the question that was posed to you is a 250 dollars per day per violation in other words a total of 500 per day i i understand uh what you're saying but the second one dco 34-32 is a supporting uh code to 34-1a so despite that the ruling of this board the first order orders a 250 dollar not per day not per violation so a total of 250. so 250 dollars per day i'll entertain a motion to accept the affidavit of non-confliance jamie ballard i move in case number two five two one one seven city versus hubner sean for the property located at one five one eight fairway drive did not correct the violations of code sections dco section 34-1 per n a dco section 34-32 on or before the compliance date of april 21st 2026 and to accept the affidavit of non-compliance based on the gravity of the violation any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations committed by the violator this to be to be i'm sorry determined to be a severe violation and a fine of 250 dollars per day is imposed from the date of april 21st 2026 until compliance is met the respondent is ordered to contact code of compliance for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order thank you i need a second jeremy reynolds i'll second thank you roll call please mr jillette aye mr walensky aye miss hunt aye miss ballard aye mr reynolds aye mr alexander aye chair stone aye the motion passes and an order will issue um under new business now we have two cases well three case numbers the first is 25-2211 the city versus summit 1681 main street llc concerning the property located at 1701 main street a violation of dco section 70-73 who is speaking to that michelle yes thank you my name is michelle gilbert co-compliance inspector with the city of dunedin presenting for 1701 main street for case 25-2211 and today i'm requesting a declaration of violation a respondent is summit 1681 main llc and jen harker is the property manager the address is 1701 main street dunedin florida 349 34698 my apologies for my backwards typing there and its own gb general business number of violations is one dco section 70-73 taxation business tax receipt btr required no person shall engage in or manage any business occupation or profession for which there is a local business tax receipt required by this article unless that person first procures a local business tax receipt from the city to conduct the business occupation or profession the notice of violation was sent certified mail to the property owner registered agent and the business in january 12 of 2026 with a compliance date of february 12 2026 it received certified mail delivery confirmations for the notice of violations january 15 2026 at 11 50 n for the property owner january 15 2026 at 12 17 a.m for the registered agent and january 15 2026 for 1009 a.m for the business owner notice of hearing was sent certified mail to the property owner registered agent and business on april 2nd of 2026 and they received a certified mail delivery confirmation for the notice of hearing one was still in transit and that was the one for the property owner it was stuck in gainsville distribution center and that was april 17th of 2026 at 3 58 pm april 6 of 2026 11 17 a.m the the registered agent signed for theirs and april 4th 2026 at 11 21 a.m the business owner signed for theirs this shows notice of violation sent certified mail to property owner this shows it was sent to the registered agent and this shows the notice of violation that was sent to the business owner this is the notice of hearing to the property owner notice of hearing to the registered agent and notice of hearing to the business owner this is a sun vis for 1701 main street and this is the sun vis for the property owner and they have a property managing company taking care of it which assembler and their contact is property manager jen harker and she takes care of the entire plaza it shows that they had an inactive registration from 2011 so they did um were told to go on and apply and it was put on hold with an active hold showing that they had a new application submitted but they did not have any type of sun vis registration with the state this shows an email request from the permitting department to delcos asking for their sun vis registration on february 12 2026 and this permitting department it goes it's an automatic request that comes in through the permit technician again another request from delcos on uh from the permitting department asking for the sun vis registration again on february 24 2026 and again the same thing asking again march 12 2026 and then uh on april 13 2026 again asking for them to present their sun vis registration for some reason they were having difficulty understanding that they had to register with the state they felt that they didn't have to do that they said that they already had state registration but that was for their um their license with for being able to have food in the on the property through the department of business professional regulation was a completely different uh registration and then uh we got on the 27th of april uh there was an email request to delcos from the permitting department advising that a fire inspection would be required for the business and is still waiting for the sun biz registration to be submitted because at this time the application is still on hold we're still waiting for that information so that we can process it through the second email was sent to them saying please get a fire department get with the fire department and get your fire inspection because it is required for this business in order to be able to approve this application that was the second request and that was april 30th and then on may may 4th an email request was sent to delcos from the permitting department requesting payment uh and they were invoiced they finally got their final uh fire inspection and they received the sun biz information and we have a fee breakdown uh for payment of which is 135 dollars and 50 cents which he did pay in full on uh may 4th 2026 at 3 41 p.m and this is the issued business tax receipt um to be renewed annually and i leave it for you to deliberate and remember this is a declaration of violation but the violation has been abated as of today or yesterday yesterday yesterday yesterday okay any members of the board have questions for the staff uh walinsky yes sir so i'm trying to juggle the players here summit um is the actual property manager of the property they're a property management company for the prop for the property owners so who's the property owner the owner i mean i see the sembler sign up so i would yeah they handle it could just be the leasing agent though i don't know um they handle all property all property um you know transactions it does say summit 1681 main street llc but sembler is the property manager for it it's not their owner they're the property manager summit is the owner summit is the owner summit 1681 main street llc yeah and the issue is the tenant correct yes the tenant delco's the restaurant delco's did not have a current business tax receipt in order to do business in the city they have to have a current business tax receipt with the city that's renewable annually okay and who at delco said that oh yes we are registered with the state it was ed crowley he's one of the partners there at delco's they've they've been there so long they have i don't understand how this could even come up it it went wayside and i was doing a blitz of the plaza went for btrs in there they weren't one of the only ones that they were there was many in there that just didn't do it or just forgot about it and i kind of put that on the the owner's rep um they should be telling these people when they when they lease a space that it is required with the city to obtain a business tax receipt you know to do to run your business and operate your business um you know there's lots of things that go with that you know there's fire inspections there's all these things there's like that's life safety welfare so we have to make sure that everybody's abiding by the same type of of rules um yes this did go wayside for a bit um but now they're on track they do have it um and he is aware that it is an annual renewal that's why i'm doing a declaration of violation because if he does it again within the next five years it can automatically go back so thank you so much okay any further questions from board members council do you have something no not at this time okay i'll entertain a motion chairman reynolds i move to find the respondent summit 1681 main street llc in violation of city of dunedin code of ordinances section 70-73 for failing to obtain a required business tax receipt for the property located at 1701 main street i further move to order that the respondent be given 15 calendar days from today until the close of business on may 20th 2026 i'm sorry i i pre-wrote this you're right you never mind i withdraw jamie ballard i move in case number two five two two one one for the property located at one seven zero one main street was in violation of the city of dunedin code section 70-73 and did not correct the violation on or before the compliance date of the original compliance date i'm sorry february 12 february 12 2026 but has come into compliance before today's hearing on may 5th uh 2026 so no fines are assessed as a first-time violator if the respondent is found in violation of code section 70-73 again within five years from the date of this order an immediate fine of up to five hundred dollars per day may be imposed okay one one correction your notices are identified the tenant delco original stakes not the property owner so our our motion needs to be amended to identify the tenant not the property owner and that's a separate issue but for purposes of a ruling we need to identify the party i met my motion to identify delco's as the party as the violator delco original stakes i believe yeah delco's original stakes as the violator do i have a second lisa hunt second thank you roll call please um excuse me um it is their uh registered name with the division of corporation with sunbiz is delco stakes and hoagies llc which i just got um on april 30th they couldn't they couldn't use the other name because it was already taken when they went to register there through sunbiz so they changed it to delco's uh stakes llc may i see yes of course yeah because the notices i can't check while council is reviewing the documents from the city staff is there a question as to whether one of the named respondents was not properly named was it is it also an llc doing businesses and the dba name has remained unchanged no it's delco's that they registered their name it was one name and then it was taken through the state when they went to register the original whatever and because they have a partnership they re-registered it and got this new sunbiz and then they couldn't use that same name so they changed it and put it on that delco's originals and hoagies or whatever that's what it uh reads on the paper there so the property owner is summit 1681 mainstream we already established that's correct and the tenant is delco stakes and hoagies llc perfect yes okay the notices were mailed out and identified the tenant under 162 you don't have to issue your notice of violation against the property owner you can do it against the tenant obviously that has consequences on the side we won't address here but the motion needs to address delco stakes and hoagies llc for purposes of of this case and how it was noticed so willinsky so you're saying that the uh case number 25-2211 city versus delco's stakes and hoagies llc not summit that is correct your agenda has summit but the notices if you actually click on them and open them they don't identify summit they only identify delco stakes well then if i'm if i'm the owner of delco's and i look on our agenda i'm not seeing my business on there am i do it does at that point did i receive adequate notice oh excuse me all the the the business was noticed the property owner was noticed and the registered agents were noticed everybody was noticed yeah they received notice but they received notice of a of a proceeding for summit 1681 i don't type the agendas mr reynolds agenda is not part of your notices the actual notices themselves identify you can click if i don't know if you have the packet yeah but the actual notices themselves correctly identified delco stakes okay okay so so you notice a violation so right now we have a motion and a second on that motion we have not uh received a vote we need to amend that motion to correct to identify the full party and if i can pass this over it's right at the top i've got it right here oh okay oh yeah perfect jamie ballard i amend my motion to identify delco stakes and hoagies llc as the violator in case number two five dash two two one one thank you thank you nicely done a roll call please mr gillette aye mr walensky aye miss hunt aye miss ballard aye mr reynolds nay mr alexander aye chair stone aye the motion passes and an appropriate order will issue the ma'am which case are you here on okay so we have two cases before us with two separate docket numbers 26-316 the city versus derek daniels and jennifer casado okay because we have two separate cases council has indicated in the past we should identify each case and address each case separately so we're going to hear 26-316 first that's the motor violate motor vehicles violation who on the city's staff is speaking to that i am go ahead okay good afternoon board members my name is rachel laurel co-compliance inspector for the city of dunedin i'll be showing you a powerpoint presentation uh for case number 26-316 the respondent is derek b daniels and jennifer a cosado their address is 603 howell court in dunedin the zoning a single family home in the r60 zoning district number of violations is one of ipmc 302.8 motor vehicles except as provided for in other regulations no inoperative or unlicensed motor vehicle shall be parked kept or stored on any premises and no vehicle shall at any time be in be in a state of major disassembly disrepair or in the process of being stripped or dismantled painting of vehicles is prohibited unless conducted inside an improved spray booth notice of violation was posted to the property city hall and sent certified mail to the owners on april 1st 2026 with a compliance date of april 11th 2026 certified mail for the notice of violation was signed for by the owners on april 16th 2026 at 1 19 pm notice of hearing was posted to the property city hall and sent certified mail to the owners on april 24th 2026 the certified mail for the notice of hearing is still attempting delivery as of may 4th 2026 my initial inspection was done on march 30th 2026 where you could see a white volkswagen bug on the driveway with no current tag so a notice of violation was uh posted on april 6th here's a picture of the affidavit of posting and notice of violation that was posted on the property and here's a close-up picture of the affidavit of posting and notice of violation here is the banner page um and the sign certified mail uh for the notice of violation the mail was forwarded um to tarpon springs and in that little box has the exact um address of where the property owners reside a re-inspection was done after um my notice of violation on april 22nd 2026 shows uh the vehicle still without a current tag so on april 24th 2026 uh you can see the vehicle still without a current tag so an affidavit of posting and a notice of today's hearing was posted um on the door if you look down at the ground you'll see the notice of violation um is still there here's a close-up picture affidavit of posting and notice of hearing on april 24th 2026 this is the banner page and a printout of the uh the mail showing that it's still uh attempting delivery this is a picture that i took on may 4th 2026 to show the vehicle uh still does not have a current tag and now i'll leave it to the board to delivery uh walensky we got a couple questions then so can you tell is somebody living in that house the home has been uh vacant for years this home i believe was in um the hurricanes and was flooded it's on bayshore boulevard and you don't have any other photos of because it looks like a garage and then like a fence and then a front door do you have any photos of the other side of that fence in the front door inside the fence yes no okay okay i think what we'll do is we'll offer the board an opportunity to ask questions of miss laurel and then ma'am you're welcome to come up and speak do does anybody else have any questions of the inspector miss laurel no okay ma'am do you want to come forward hi good afternoon my name is jennifer cassato i'm the owner with my husband of that home which has not been derelict for years it's been a year and about five months since the flood um i spoke to you on may 27 or sorry april 27th when i became aware of this hearing and the fact that our home is not an ordinance one of the issues was the grass that was dealt with immediately that day i had questions about our vehicle because i was very confused it's an operation operational vehicle we recently decommissioned it because nobody's driving it for our own personal reasons and i was met with a great deal of confusion judgment and just a really interesting experience um i was told that it was in violation because it was not operable that there was a stop at the house because of the grass and she decided you know what i'm going to go take a look at that car and i looked at the car she said and i could tell it's not operational now i'm mystified because i've never been able to look at a car and tell you it works or it doesn't work that's amazing but that car does in fact work it was never flooded and there is no insurance claim on it to which i was then told that's a lie that's not true you told me a year ago that you're waiting on insurance there's a claim on that car you're waiting to hear back and it doesn't work because it was flooded in hurricane helene that is not true there is no insurance claim on that car and i actually chuckled because i was one mystified and two take a look at the car it's not worth anything it's a sentimental car and that's why we don't get rid of it and i also was surprised because once i established that it is in fact operable i would be happy to take it get it inspected and have a license plate put back on it it was only recently that they were removed i was then abruptly cut off and told no it doesn't matter what you do because it's inoperable i said again it operates we're just not using it and she said what kind of person doesn't drive their car for a year and i said it has limited airbags it never excuse me let her speak that call was recorded because it has limited airbags it doesn't fit my family i have two toddlers and an infant at home and i found time to come here today so that car is going to be dealt with today that's not a problem but i came down here because i also sent a follow-up email saying just to reiterate hey the car is operable you said that's what i was being violated for everything fine the grass has been dealt with i received an email yesterday at 3 48 pm no time to respond saying no no the car is actually still in violation because there's no registration when i offered last monday to get it re-registered re-inspected and a plate put back on it and i would have had time to do that before today's hearing which obviously i can't do at 3 48 pm when i get your email yesterday the day before the hearing so anyways in conclusion it's going to be dealt with today it won't be visible as you've stated everyone knows your car which is what you said so thank you but i'm sorry to have taken up your time with this matter again the car will be dealt with the grass won't be an issue again it was dealt with immediately after our phone call i'm happy to do that and find the time whenever that is but the car too will be dealt with but that is what took place i pray to god that was a recorded phone call because i'm mystified of your constituent services that's really all i have to say i know i have three minutes and i want to respect your time thank you do you have a question or i can go sit down we we appreciate your coming and just so you're clear we do not oversee the board the code code enforcement inspectors are part of a city agency we're an impartial hearing board and we would have given you more than three minutes if you needed it i appreciate that greatly i used to work in government quite high up so that's one of the reasons why i'm a little ticked off because you're coming at a person who just lost their home their children lost everything i've spoken to you before when you told me you came to violate my neighbor and to be fair you violated me in addition yes it was it was the grass okay so we have two separate cases the first case that we're addressing now has to do with the motor vehicle yes and am i clear and when you say it's going to be taken care of i'm not clear whether that means you're going to move it on a flatbed or you're going to register it and put plates on it what exactly are you proposing to do it'll be moved it won't be an issue it will be out of sight out of mind not a problem again okay and if we give you a week to do that would that be adequate time you can give me a week i don't need a week but you can give me a week but i appreciate that okay i've got a question also walinsky um and you're saying that the excessive growth of weeds has been taken care of yes it has but that's not before us now that's a separate case we'll get to that in just a moment we'll get to that in just a moment i'm sorry this is the next case it's a separate case number yes it is okay i'm sorry uh and just for purposes of the record is a quasi-judicial proceeding so you're not limited to three minutes um another thing just for purposes of decorum i usually say address the chair of the board when testifying or the board members and let's try to avoid the back and forth with the court officers but that's all okay so the respondent is here we appreciate her being here she said she's going to move the car we've offered a week do you have a question lisa did you by hi lisa hunt um did you by chance get the um the 4 11 26 compliance date notification the certified mail the certified i'm so happy you asked me about that i did not in fact get that i honestly have no clue who signed for it i also made that clear which is confusing because in that slideshow it says that i in fact signed for it which i did not which i said on the phone and i said via email and writing just to make it abundantly clear and i asked for a copy of the signature which if you look at the slide it's a line so i have no idea who signed for this but either way my husband and i are happy to address it we've been here for a number of years off and on you're here not before this board i hope yeah no no no but i mean okay i think i think we all have enough information to move forward on this we have a proposal from the respondent to remove the offending vehicle we've offered to give her seven days she do you have a recommendation please okay city's recommendation for case number 26-316 violations one of ipmc 302.8 motor vehicles requesting compliance on or before may 19 2026 which is 14 days given an additional seven days from today's uh board hearing for the owner to register the vehicle or the remove the vehicle from the property or given the severity of the violation is minor i am requesting a fine amount of 150 per day for each day the violation continues to exist i'll entertain a motion from a board member jeremy reynolds in the matter of case number 26-316 city of dunedin versus derrick b daniels and jennifer a cusado regarding the property located at 2490 basher boulevard dead in florida i move the board find the respondents in violation of international property maintenance code section 302.8 as adopted by the city of dunedin for maintaining an inoperative and or unlicensed motor vehicle on the premises i further move the board order the respondents to come into compliance by making the vehicle offerable and currently licensed or by removing it from the property within 15 calendar days of this hearing no later than close of business on may 20th 2026 if compliance is not achieved by may 20th deadline a fine of 250 per day shall be imposed for every day the violation continues and the city is authorized to record a lien against the property in accordance with florida statutes chapter 162 i so move um am i correct mr reynolds that you are changing the dates and days of the compliance from the recommendation you would have to the end of business on may 20th to come to compliance that's one day outside of what the city is asking for and you're also changing the fine amount from 150 to 250 yep okay we have a motion i second the motion thank you roll call please mr jillette nay mr walensky aye miss hunt nay miss ballard nay mr reynolds all right mr alexander nay tristone nay we don't have a sufficient number of the votes to pass that motion would someone care to make a successor motion jamie ballard i move in case number 26-316 city versus derrick daniels and jennifer casado for the property located at 2490 bay shore boulevard and find uh the respondents in violation of city of dunedin code section 302.8 motor vehicles in order the respondent to come into compliance by may 19th 2026 by removing uh registering or removing the vehicle from the property 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 compliance office for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order thank you i'll need a second lisa hunt second thank you roll call please mr gillette aye mr walensky nay miss hunt aye miss ballard aye mr reynolds nay mr alexander aye chairstone aye do we have five that passes five to two okay the motion passes and an order will issue you can sit down or do you want to wait a second we have a second case um why don't you sit down the city will present and we have already heard from you so you'll have a second opportunity okay in the case of 26-317 okay good afternoon board members my name is rachel laurel code compliance inspector for the city of dunedin i'll be showing a powerpoint presentation for case number 26-317 city will be requesting a declaration of violation the respondents are derek b daniels and jennifer a cusado they reside at 603 howell court dunedin zoning single-family home in the r60 zoning district number of violations one of dco section 34-31 environment excessive growth of weeds grasses or turf it shall be unlawful for any person who shall own control or occupy any lot parcel land or premises in city to allow weeds grass or turf to grow up on such lot parcel land or premises to a height exceeding 10 inches notice of violation was posted to the property city hall and send certified mail to the owner on april 1st 2026 with a compliance date of april 11th 2026 certified mail for the notice of hearing is still attempting delivery as of may 4th 2026 this is um the front of the property uh you can see the property is is overgrown this is the little access road um bay shore is on the other side of this road so it's it's visible to everybody going up and down uh bay shore boulevard here's a picture of the overgrowth along the um fence as well as on the other side of the driveway this was my initial inspection on march 30th since the property was overgrown uh notice of violation was posted on april 1st 2026 again here's the access road adjacent to bay shore boulevard and here is the front of the property and here's alongside of the fence adjacent to the driveway and here is the other side of the driveway this is a picture of the affidavit of posting and notice of violation on the garage door here's a close-up picture the affidavit of posting and notice of violation and here is the banner page and the um signed signature uh for the notice of violation uh which was signed for on april 16th 2026 at 1 19 p.m here's a re-inspection after my notice of violation to show that the property is still in violation here is the front of the property alongside of the driveway and the fence and the other side of the driveway there's been no change and this was on april 22nd 2026 so when notice a hearing was posted on april 24th 2026 here is the front of the property and alongside of the driveway and the fence and on the other side of the driveway there was no change on to the condition of the property so an affidavit of posting and notice of hearing was posted on the garage door and here is the close-up picture of the affidavit of posting notice of hearing the banner page and the printout from usps to show that the notice of hearing is still attempting delivery as of may 4th 2026 i did a re-inspection on april 29th 2026 and the property has been mowed and here's a picture alongside of the driveway and the fence and the other side of the driveway so i'll leave it to the board to deliberate so you are requesting a declaration of violation and the violation has been abated and is no longer correct okay board members have any questions from miss laurel no i'll entertain a motion with the respondent still needs to be allowed to testify to it yeah we she testified earlier and it's been abated already so you're welcome to come up and chat okay okay okay a motion please declaration of violation no penalty january reynolds i'm moving case 26-317 for the property located at 2490 bayshore boulevard to find the respondents derrick b janiels and jennifer quesado did correct the violation of code section 34-31 and to accept the uh i have the wrong term in front of me um affidavit of violations that we're calling it help me out declaration violation thank you i so move we have a motion a second please no i think it's partially just i'm not sure it's basically very clear it's motion number two he wants to redo it mr were the violations abated before or after the compliance date so the the motion is on the floor unless we get a second but wait this is you're saying i should use this under old business no no i'm pointing to motion number two there yeah that's our template motion you can do your own motion but we do these template motions for a reason okay i think that i think there are a couple of issues before us one is uh mr reynolds has amended the templates that have been provided by council to the board and the other was a fact question directed to the inspector so we can use the proper form which was the date of compliance and when it was abated when was the compliance deadline 4 11 was the compliance date and i went out there on the 29th yes april 29th and it was abated on april 29th so we don't know whether it was abated before or after the compliance date it was after my conversation with miss cusado on the 27th she told me she was going to send somebody out there to mow the property i did not uh get current pictures but yes i have driven by the property on april 28th and the property was mowed on the 28th why don't you come up i would just like to add wilinski that motion number two addresses that on compliance before the date of the hearing mr wilinski is correct um for purposes of a declaration of violation all we need to establish is that the violation wasn't corrected by the compliance state april 11th if it was corrected before that but before the date of the hearing the board is still authorized to issue that declaration so what we have are we in agreement that you did it after the 11th yeah because i only found the papers that were on the ground by then okay over the weekend so just trying to make sure we're all on the same page here as to the dates okay all right so um i have a question procedurally we have a motion for mr reynolds which let me finish so okay so procedurally we have a motion for mr reynolds which has not been seconded correct that is correct okay now miss hunt has a question for the respondent yes lisa hunt um is it in question at all that that signature on the very first certified mail it doesn't look like a signature at all doesn't she have i think the city would say that that's what's provided to them by the postal service correct so that was considered a signature that little i don't know how she signs yeah i'm just saying she already said i think i think it's a non-issue we have actual notice we have a respondent here in front of us i mean it would be nice if everybody used perfectly legible handwriting i'm guilty of that no i'm just asking is it something that needs to be something for the board's consideration okay if if the respondent wants to address issues with notices she does have rights in front of the circuit court she can take that too it's it's not for the board to make a ruling on right now i'll want to focus on is whether or not this violation occurred and whether or not it was corrected by the compliance date which is the april 11th okay thank you okay we'll try again so mr reynolds put a motion before the board we don't have a second i'll offer the board another opportunity to second his motion if not i'll entertain another motion how do people do we have a second no okay can we have another motion then please jamie ballard i move in case number two six dash three one seven for the property located at two four nine zero bay shore boulevard find the respondents derek daniels and jennifer cosado uh were in violation of the city of dunedin code section three four dash three one and did not correct the violation on it before the compliance date of april 11th 2026 but have come into compliance uh before the hearing date of today which is may 5th 2026 so no fines are assessed as a first-time violator if the respondent has found the violation of code section three four dash three one again within five years from the date of this order an immediate fine of up to five hundred dollars per day may be imposed second please lisa hunt second thank you roll call please mr gillette aye mr walensky aye miss hunt aye miss ballard aye mr reynolds aye mr alexander aye chair stone aye the motion passes and an order will issue thank you thank you for your time okay we now move on to item number six on our agenda other business this is an opportunity for code enforcement board members to make comments the city attorney the city staff do any of those folks have anything they want to share laura is that a hand oh i will linsky had a question for the uh attorney go ahead um there was a a violation back when in which there is a lien on the property this was case number 25-1725 uh located 2490 trade winds drive so apparently uh we did a motion uh the fines have already been up to twenty thousand dollars uh a lien has been filed on the property uh my question to you is when when does the city planning on foreclosing on that lien so first we have to uh identify whether it's homestead homestead property or non-homestead if it's a non-homestead property then city essentially code officers can take that up to administration and that can be sent routed to legal um in order to you know initiate a foreclosure proceeding potentially yeah and what's the period of time once that that lien has been filed and when that occurs what is that six months so under uh 162 um the minimum time is three months so we have to wait an initial three months before we start assessing uh potential foreclosure for the property and it's go from three months to 20 years up to 20 years and would there be a reason why we'd wait 20 years no sir it just it kind of is a more of an administrative decision that cities make um you know some cases they way up to six years two years i've seen so when was the actually lien filed we have a date on that sorry i don't have the date off the top of my head but i believe that case was in january i think january 6 i want to say was when it was first heard so it would have been we made i can get that date for the fine of a thousand dollars per day back on november 12th of 25 so yes that 20 000 accumulated but we still don't have the date that the lien was actually filed i i have it i don't have it off the top of my head but it was filed i just don't recall it off the top of my head so what i can do is pull the case records and provide a summary update for the board member um i can do that and then kind of outline some of the options depending on whether or not it's homestead then i'll kind of outline that at we should be able to get that to you by the next hearing if that's okay yeah can i ask a follow-up question i'll do that as well i'll help out with that no i don't think there's anything no there's nothing to rule on he simply just wants an update on a case that we have already ruled upon i believe that's the commentary but a quick follow-up question if i may is that a city manager just is in charge of the decision whether to move forward foreclosure is that more of a city commission or is that somewhere in the middle i believe as a city manager i would have to confirm with a city attorney but essentially a city manager would have to approve the initiation of foreclosure and and legal would have to determine that it's even eligible for a foreclosure in the first place cool thank you are there other board member questions for council uh if not then we need to agree on our next meeting date which is scheduled for june second does that conflict with any holidays national catch-up day or some such okay the second it is thank you all i'll entertain a motion to adjourn jeremy reynolds i still move second lisa hunt all those in favor all right motion passes you