I chair the Code Enforcement Board. For those of you who haven't had the pleasure of being here before, I ask you all to turn off your cell phones. These meetings are recorded and transcribed. When you come up and speak into the microphone, please say your name first. That makes it easier for the transcribers to know who is speaking. And as I said, kiss the mic. Lisa, would you like to take over?
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 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 witnesses before the Board. The respondent or his or her representative shall 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 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, one, findings of facts, findings of fact, two, conclusions of law, and three, affirmative action to be taken. The order will be forwarded to the respondent by certified mail. We will now continue with our hearings.
Thank you. Do we have anybody in the room who wants to speak on an item that is not on the agenda? Okay, the first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from our last meeting in April. Those minutes were circulated to members of the Board beforehand today. Would anyone care to offer any comments, questions, suggestions, edits, or yes, no? Okay, then I'll entertain a motion to approve. Accept. Approve. Well, you need to make a motion. I make a motion that we accept the minutes.
I accept.
Jamie Ballard, I second.
All in favor? Aye. Say aye. Aye. Thank you. It's unanimous and it passes. Joan, would you swear in everybody who's going to be speaking and testifying today, please? Thank you. You can be seated. It appears that we have no affidavits of compliance. Is that correct? Right. Okay, so we'll move on to all business. The first case, item 4A on your agenda is case number 24-569, City of Dunedin versus Walvicker, Florida Properties concerning the property at 2602 Bayshore Boulevard. People in the audience here, who's going to be speaking on that? Okay, so the city is going to present, you've been here before, the city is going to present its case first. Members of the board will have an opportunity to ask questions and you'll have a chance to present your side. Do you want to come up closer or are you able to hear everything when you're sitting in the back? Okay, all right. Ms. Phillips, who's carrying this one?
Good afternoon, board. Julie Phillips, co-compliance supervisor. This case was already presented. I do have the owners here who are requesting an extension. If you need photos of the site, I am happy to remind you of what it looked like from the hurricanes. This would be in reference to the gym located at 2602 Bayshore Boulevard. So I'll pull up a couple of pictures here just as a reminder. Okay, again, Julie Phillips, co-compliance supervisor. And this was referencing case 24569 and 570. It was, the first violation was IPMC section 3046, exterior walls. All exterior walls shall be free from holes, breaks, loose rotting materials and maintained in a weatherproof and property surface coated where required to prevent deterioration. And the second one was case 24570, IPMC section 3049, overhang extensions. All overhang extensions including, but not limited to, canopies, marquees, signs, metal oddings, fire escapes, sandpipes, exhaust ducts shall be made in good repair and properly anchored so as to be kept in a sound condition. When required, all exposed surfaces of metal wood shall be protected from the elements against decay, rust, periodic application of weather coating materials such as paint and similar surface treatment. So when this case originally came to code board, this is what the gym looked like and that was May 30th of 2024. You can see the overhang extensioning, the open in the walls. The compliance date for this when they came before the board December 3rd of 2024 was April 13th, 2025. So these are the pictures that were taken on April 17th, 2025. And just a look this month of 5-5-2025. Pretty much the same. So at this time, I'll just have the owner come up and he can keep you up to date on what's going on.
Ms. Phillips, am I correct that we're hearing both of these cases together?
Yes.
Okay. And you said that the original compliant date was 4-15?
They came before the board December 3rd, 2024 and we gave an extension until April 13th.
13th. Thank you. And if I recall, there was a contractor involved who said it would take some time.
Correct.
And we tried to accommodate.
Correct.
Okay. So here we are today.
Hi, my name is Cody Voigt. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Walvacar. Okay.
Can you try and raise the mic up a little bit?
I need your name for the record, please.
Cody, last name is Voigt, V as in Victor, OGT.
Thank you.
And I'm with Synergy Property Restoration. We're the contractor of record on the claim and the repairs here. So if you could look at the photo there, what happened during September when Hurricane Haleen came through, the wind actually ripped the roof system off of this elevation of the building, further damaging the roof. So there's been quite a bit more demolition and temporary repairs done. It is watertight currently, but it's been a process to acquire engineering, to submit permits, to have the inspections done with the insurance carrier, to restore the property. As many of you know, the area had catastrophic damage from Haleen that needed to be cleaned up. And it's been quite an undertaking to get all of these businesses and people back operational, which has now been accomplished. There's also been other repairs and violations addressed in the parking lot and a number of other things. And as I stated previously, it likely was going to require an additional extension to be able to complete this. At this time, I have submitted the engineering for approval. I've yet to receive from the city building permit office the change order request finalized from the city. So it's currently in application. It's an amendment of our existing permit. So in other words, I couldn't start right now if I truly wanted to. I can't frame, based on the previous permit, to the existing roof line. So that's a bit of a hurdle with the city of Dunedin itself. But we are prepared to proceed with this work as soon as they provide us approval. At this time, I would request another minimum of 90 days, if not slightly longer than that, to complete this because of the extent of the damage. This is now the second at minimum multimillion dollar loss that this property has sustained in the last couple of years. But again, this property has made drastic improvements and we're asking for a little bit of leeway here to be able to accommodate.
So I have one question for you first and then I'll open it up to other members of the board. When you say you're requesting 90 days, how much time would it take you to abate the violation once you receive the approval of the permits?
It likely can be, the work likely can be inspected and performed within that 90-day period. But because I don't have approval currently, I'm expecting that might take a little bit of time. So that's why slightly longer might be required. But I believe we can get it done within four months for sure. But 90 days would be adequate.
Is that business occupied now?
The gym is occupied and it's back operational. It's watertight. So in other words, it's not actively leaking. But there are a number of different things that are going to need to be done to that roof system and air conditioning unit. The space that you're seeing on the screen there is actually a vacant space. But nonetheless, it's not being deteriorated or anything like that. It's watertight currently. If you can maybe picture in your mind's eye, this was a renovation at one point where they did a parapet wall to make the statics look a little bit different. So that's actually a dried roof system that was the original roof system from the building from probably the 60s.
Okay. Other members of the board have questions?
Lisa Hunt. Is there a way you can split screen from 2024 to this picture right here?
I don't think so. Shall we just go back to the original picture?
Please.
Is that the one you're looking for? The original date?
Yeah.
I don't see any difference.
So if you look at that right elevation, you'll see that there's a roof and framing that existed. And Hurricane Lean actually picked up that whole roof system and folded it back on itself. So if you go back to the other photo, that section of the roof will be missing. The steel is there. However, the roof system that was above there, which is framed in wood, is no longer there.
So in 2024, what were you trying to accomplish when it was in this state?
So you may or may not be aware of this, but the facade was actually framed at the time the hurricane came through. So all the steel facade framework was in place awaiting inspection when Hurricane Lean came through and it was destroyed by the storm. And I believe Julie, I showed her photos of that. If you'd like, I could show you photos of that as well from the previous hearing. But it was fully framed at the time of September.
Can you flip back through back to the current day?
You can see it in that photo how the roof line is now missing above it. Just the roof. Yeah.
Julie, the original damage, wasn't it from a tornado that touched down in 23?
Other questions from members of the board or council? Walter, yeah?
Walter. Question, there's an active permit now on the project?
There is. It's the permit that was in place from the tornado, sir.
From the tornado. So that permit's two years old?
Correct.
Okay. And so you're trying to get an addendum to it or attachment to it for the most recent damages.
Correct. It's simply more expeditious that way because it's two separate framing members that now adjoin. So it would have to be inspected as one. Alternatively, if the chief building inspector wanted it separate, it would be dry and then frame the roof and then have a separate permit to then frame to an existing roof line. So that's going to be the most expeditious way to do it. That's the way we've presented it.
Does the building department have everything they need at this point so it's not in your hands anymore or you're waiting on the building department?
They do. I actually brought an email from my office to Chuck Pitt here at the City of Dunedin dated May 2nd. They have all of the plans and revisions in hand.
Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions?
Yeah. Can Matt Walensky, can someone remind me what the date of Hurricane Helene was?
September 26th, if I'm not mistaken, 2024.
Okay. Are there any further questions from board members? No? So what we have is a request to extend the compliance date for 90 days which would be from April 13th. Is that correct? Is that what you're asking for?
We would need from today's date but we could extend that or modify the request as needed. So we're now May 6th, I believe. So we're going to need an additional 90 days.
The city's in full support. of giving the extension. I will say Ms. Walbaker has done everything I've asked him to do from paving the lot to getting the windows done, though it took an extremely long amount of time to get this process done. This is the last thing that needs to be done and we're not approving any more development until it gets completed. So I think they want to get it done as fast as they can. So I'm in full of support of even going to September 6th to get the 30 days to make sure the permit's approved and give them that three months but that's probably the max I would be willing to do for that.
That's more than fair. Julie's been excellent to deal with. We've been doing the best we can to accommodate all of her requests.
Ms. Phillip, I'm looking at my calendar here. So their request was 90 days from today which takes us to the second week in August and then in September the board meets on the second. So I assume you would want some time before the meeting on the second to go out and check on the status?
Unless they come into compliance prior to we might be sitting here with an affidavit of compliance. It just depends on how fast they can get this completed.
So does it make sense to extend the compliance date to August 26th then?
That would be fine.
That would be one week before the scheduled meeting in September.
That sounds reasonable.
And I'm not sure where Labor Day comes into it.
You actually need 10 days. 10 days. Yeah.
Okay. So it seems as though the city's in agreement that the compliance date can be extended and I think all parties have agreed on August 26th. Does that work for you?
That is excellent.
Thank you very much. Okay. Is there anyone else who wanted to be heard on this matter? I see two gentlemen standing here. No?
I don't believe it's necessary.
Moral support? Moral support. Okay. Well, thank you all. Thanks for coming.
Thank you guys. You're welcome, sir.
Chair, that's still not 10 days for the September board, but that you pick any day you want, that would come to the October board.
I think the hope
and I think the hope
is that the work will be completed by then.
Pardon me?
I think the hope is that the work will be completed by then before we get into another hurricane season. Okay. For new business...
You need a motion.
You need a motion. So the motion is to extend the date of compliance to August 26th, 2025. I know I can't make. I just want to make sure that that's what you're looking for is a motion to extend the existing date.
I think so.
Okay. Go for it.
Okay. Jamie Ballard. I move in case numbers 24569 and 24570 for the property located at 2602 Bayshore Boulevard. Find the respondent Welvecar Florida Properties LLC did not comply with the board's order of December 3rd, 2024 by the compliance date of April 13th, 2025. The board is hereby granting an extension of the original compliance date to August 26th, 2025. If the violation is not corrected by that date, a fine in the amount of $150 will be imposed until compliance per day. I'm sorry. Until compliance is met, the respondent is hereby ordered to contact code compliance for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order.
Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Walter. Roll call.
That was Terry made the second?
Yes.
Okay, thanks.
Okay, Mr. Gillette.
Aye.
Mr. Walensky?
Nay.
Ms. Hunt? Aye. I'm sorry. I need to interrupt. Did you say $150 a day? Because it's $250 a day. It just, when you said that, it triggered me when I had to go back. So that, could you amend that to $250 a day, please?
I'll amend my motion to $250 per day.
Okay. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser?
Aye.
And Chair Stone?
Aye. The motion passes and order will issue. Thank you. Okay, we're moving on to new business. The first case before us is case number 24-1167, City of Dunedin versus 2010 Heidelberg Avenue, LLC. Is there anyone here to speak for the respondents? No? No, no, no. Okay. Rachel?
Good afternoon, Board. I'll be showing you a PowerPoint presentation for 2010 Heidelberg Avenue. My name is Rachel Laurel. I'm a co-compliance inspector for the City of Dunedin. This is in reference to case number 25-1167. This property is now in compliance, so the City is requesting a declaration of violation.
Okay. Before you go any further, our agenda says the case number is 24-1167. Which is the correct case number?
It should be 25. It's 25. That's what I'm saying. 1167.
Thank you.
The respondent is 2010 Heidelberg Avenue, LLC. They reside at 1550 South Missouri Avenue. The zoning is a single-family home in the R60 zoning district. Number of violations is one of DCO Section 105-27.1.1.1, sub-parent F1 and 5, site standards for houses and duplexes, utility trailers, boats, recreational vehicles, and other recreational equipment standards. Subsection 1 is utility trailers, boats, recreational equipment, and recreational vehicles may not be parked or stored in any portion of the front yard to include the buildable area unless actual loading or unloading with a four-hour maximum is taken place. Subsection 5 states, no utility trailers, boats, or other recreational equipment and recreational vehicles shall be located between the minimum setbacks established in Chapter 103 zoning unless screened by a six-foot privacy fence. A notice of violation was posted on the property, City Hall, and mailed certified to the owner and registered agent on March 18, 2025 with a compliance date of March 28, 2025. I did not receive the certified mail delivery confirmation for the notice of violation from the property owner. The certified mail was returned to the office on April 2, 2025 at 2.50 p.m. Certified mail delivery confirmation for the notice of violation from the registered agent was delivered on March 24, 2025 at 1.12 p.m. A notice of hearing was posted on the property and at City Hall and sent certified mail to the property owner and registered agent on April 25, 2025. As of today, I did not receive the certified mail delivery confirmation for the notice of hearing from the property owner. However, I did receive a certified mail delivery confirmation of the notice of hearing from the registered agent on April 28, 2025 at 12.45 p.m. This picture here is showing the trailer in the front yard setbacks parked and stored in the front and side of the property. This is on my initial inspection, March 14, 2025. This is the March 18, 2025 is the date of my posting of the notice of violation showing the trailer is still on the property in the same location. Here is a picture of my affidavit of posting and notice of violation on the front door on that date, March 18, 2025. Reinspections, date of March 28, 2025 shows the trailer is still located in the same location on the property. Another reinspection date of March 31, 2025 shows the trailer is still located in the same location as well as on April 7, 2025. April 25, 2025, the trailer is still at the same location. April 22, 2025, the trailer is still on the property in the same location. April 25, 2025 is the date of my posting of notice of hearing and the trailer is still located on the property. Here is a picture of affidavit of posting and notice of hearing that was posted to the front door of the property on April 25, 2025. A re-inspection was done on April 29, 2025 and the trailer has been removed. So now I'll give the board opportunity to deliberate.
So am I correct that you're looking for a declaration of violation?
Correct.
And they did not come into compliance on the original compliance date of March 28th?
Correct.
Correct. Okay. So I would look for a motion from a member of the board. Motion number two. Okay, thank you.
Matt Wildinski, I move in case number 25-1167 for the property located at 2010 Heidelberg Avenue. to find the respondent, I guess Heidelberg Avenue, did not correct the violation on or before the compliance date of March 28th, 25. They are now in compliance. The declaration of violation serves as notice that if the respondent is not found in violation of the code section number DCO, section 105-27.1.1, again within five years from the date of this order, an immediate fine of $500 per day may be imposed.
Thank you. I need a second.
Before we move on, let's state the full name of the respondent, which is going to be actually the address, 2010 Heidelberg Avenue. That's what I did. Did you stay with the number and everything? Okay, perfect.
Any other questions or comments? Okay. We ready for someone to second the motion, please?
Jamie Ballard, I'll second.
Thank you. Joan.
Mr. Gillette?
Aye.
Mr. Walensky?
Aye.
Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Mr. Sweetser?
Aye.
And Chair Stone?
Aye. The motion passes and an order will issue. The next item on our agenda, item 5B, is case number 25-1279, City of Dunedin versus Matthew Rowell and Tracy Rowell, or Kelly Rowell, rather, as trustees concerning the property located at 2673 St. Joseph's Drive East. Is anyone here for the respondent? No. Ms. Phillips?
Good afternoon, board. Julie Phillips, Code Compliance Supervisor for the City of Dunedin. I will be doing a PowerPoint presentation for 2673 St. Joseph's Drive East, case 25-1279, and this is a repeat violation. The respondent in this case is Matt G. Rowell Trust and Kelly C. Rowell Trust, who reside at 1419 Primwood Lane in Lutes, Florida, 33549, and this is a fourplex located in the MF15 zoning district. The number of violations is one. Again, it's a repeat violation of DCO Section 103-14.8.1, transient uses within certain zoning districts, conditional use bed and breakfast. It is unlawful for any owner of property within the multifamily zoning districts of the City of Dunedin to operate a bed and breakfast without obtaining a conditional use permit from the City's Board of Adjustment and Appeal. The definition of a repeat violation, for some of those that you do not know, 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 for us 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. On May 7th, 2024, Case 24-117 was brought before the Dunning Code Enforcement Board for an illegal short-term rental. The respondent, Matthew Ruell, was present. The board found the respondent in violation for a repeat violation of Code Section 103-14.8.1, transient uses within certain zoning districts, conditional use bed and breakfast. The respondent was fined $500 a day for eight days, totaling $4,000. On April 24, 2025, Code Compliance Supervisor Julie Phillips received a call from an adjacent neighbor that Matthew Ruell was renting out his unit less than the 90-day requirement. The complainant said he's not allowed to rent his unit short-term, so why can Mr. Ruell continue to rent his? He further stated, Mr. Ruell has a listing on VRBO that allows you to book less than the 90-day requirement. I verified the listing on VRBO when I was able to book less than 90 days. On April 25, 2025, I posted the property in City Hall with an affidavit of posting, a notice of repeat violation, and a notice of hearing. A copy was also sent to the, or certified mail to the property owner. This is the listing on VRBO. It's advertised as Nautical Landing's West Honeymoon Island, and this was taken on April 24, 2025. And deciding to pick a date, you can see in April, he's not booking 90 days, or in May, or in June, or July. I tried to book the property July 19th through the 26th, and if you'll look where it says about this property, Nautical Landing's West Honeymoon Island, he owns two sort of duplex properties also, which is advertised, Nautical Landings West. However, he's using that listing, but in this listing, it does say this is one of four units in Nautical Landings, just to make sure we have the proper properties. It did let me go ahead and book that from July 19th to July 26th. This is my affidavit of posting and notice of repeat violation, and there's a closer posting. I went back to the website on April 25th, VRBO, Nautical Landings West, close to Honeymoon Island, and Dock Access. Again, looking at April, less than 90 days, May has less than 90 days, June and July. I tried to book the property August 1st through the 8th, and was successful. I went back to the website on the 29th, and tried to book the property September 1st through the 13th, and it had been corrected, and at this time, I'll let the board deliberate.
So this is a repeat, repeat violation.
This is a third time repeat.
So there's no question that the respondent knows that what he's doing is not permitted. Correct. And if my memory's correct, wasn't he the gentleman that wanted to come before us and wanted to change the zoning?
I think he's attempted that twice, but he was denied.
Okay. I have a question for counsel. What's the maximum amount of fine that can be imposed?
$500, I repeat.
And does the city have a recommendation as to what time period the fine should be assessed?
Well, my recommendation would be I'm requesting a fine in the amount of $500 per day for the following dates, April 24th, 2025, and April 25th, totaling $1,000.
Any board members with questions? No? And again, there's nobody here further responded?
No, sir.
Okay. I'll entertain a motion.
Okay. Jamie Ballard. I move in case number 25-1279 for the property located at 2673 St. Joseph's Drive East to find the respondent, Matthew J. Rohl, and Kelly C. Rohl trustees in repeat violation of the City of Dunedin Code Section 103-14.8.1, transient uses within certain zoning districts, conditional use, bed, and breakfast, and is currently in noncompliance. The respondent shall suffer a fine of $500 per day for the dates of April 24th, 2025, and April 25th, 2025, until such time as property was brought into compliance. The respondent is hereby ordered to contact Code Compliance Office for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. I'm sorry. I should have done the motion number four. That's okay. Sorry. Respondent shall suffer a fine of $500 per day for those dates for a total of $1,000. You got it.
Does that amendment satisfy counsel? That's fine. Thank you. So we need a second? Second. Thank you.
That was Terry, right? Second was you?
Yes, ma'am.
All right. Mr. Gillette?
Aye.
Mr. Walensky?
Aye.
Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser?
Aye.
Chair Stone?
Aye. The motion passes and an order will issue. So I believe that completes the cases that are on the agenda before us. We do have some other business this afternoon. We have a vacancy as an alternate member to the Code Enforcement Board. With the notes that were our minutes that were circulated to board members prior to this meeting, there were attachments of five current or pending statements of interest to serve. Charles Smith, Chris Alexander, John Shea, Greg Maison, and Drew Patterson. Who is here today? Right. And correct me if I'm wrong, but you had a case pending before this board within the last 12 months? Okay. I really feel uncomfortable not giving the other four applicants a chance to come. I appreciate your coming in today, but I personally am not comfortable moving forward in the absence of four other people.
I invited everybody and I asked them to respond to me. So the people that didn't show up obviously are not interested because they did not contact me.
So I want to be...
This gentleman here has and the gentleman that walked out has. I think he probably left because he thought you were going to deliberate about him. I'm not sure, but that might have... Because as soon as he introduced himself, he left.
Yeah, please. So, Joan, am I clear? You sent out notices to all five people?
Yes.
And you asked them to confirm their attendance or not? Yes. And what did you hear?
These two.
Just these two.
Yeah. Nobody else responded to me. The last gentleman on the list, I've sent him an invite for two years now. Anytime there's an opening and he's never responded.
So that's Mr. Patterson?
Yes. Mr. Maison is here today. Right. Mr. Shine has never responded. And Mr. Smith is new on the list, but I did reach out to him and he didn't respond.
He did not respond. No.
Thank you. Thank you for checking.
Well, so now we have two people and only one of them is here and one of them was here? All right. Well, I'm open to procedural suggestions from other members of the board as to how we go forward. Where are we in terms of, is that the only vacant position? And people who are presently on the board now serve through what, September? When does the next person's term expire? Yeah. Okay. I just want to know if we have the luxury of a month to figure out what's going on here. I mean,
You cannot solicit a new member until that the person leaves, if you understand what I mean. In September, Dan Balduck and Jason expire and it's Jason's first term and Dan is serving a partial term. So that, I believe he, they both qualify for another term. You, sir, you expire September and your first term. So you qualify again. And that's it. The rest of them are either, well, they're all 2027.
Okay. The only concern I have is that someone was here and they got up and left.
I'm thinking he just didn't understand.
And do you know
who that person is though?
No.
Do you?
Yeah, it was Mr. Alexander.
Yeah, I know. No, this was Greg Mason. Oh, I'm sorry. Is the guy that left.
That wasn't Mason. That wasn't Mason. Oh. Which one was here then?
Yeah, I know you do. I think we're going to put this over for a month and get this squared away.
Yeah, but he's not, he's not related to the agenda or the application. Yeah, no, no. That's why I wasn't.
Oh, he was just spectating?
He, his matter is not pertaining to this board. He was just,
but was he here at the beginning when I asked for people who had non-agenda items to come forward? Yes. And he didn't.
And he did not, yeah.
He didn't stand for his hands raised either. Yeah, no, he didn't.
Okay. So, um, Mr. Maison, do you, so are you the school bus? Which cases did you have before us? Oh, okay. The three containers. Okay. Well, you know, since you're here, we don't have any other applicants. I'm prepared to go forward if everybody else is. Yes? I mean, are people comfortable with doing that? Counsel, is that okay?
Yeah, we're going to proceed.
Do you want him
to come forward and talk?
Yeah, yeah. Well, going forward means he comes up here and he tells us why he wants to sit on this side of the table now. Come on up.
Hi. So, first time I met you guys, I was here because, Chris Alexander. Hi. Address. So, I came because I had the issue with the shipping containers. To be clear, I spoke to the wrong person at the city, but he was the person that I had used for a, we demolished an old building, we got a beautification grant, Trevor Bauer, and he was my guy at the city and so I called him, I said, hi, I want to put some containers. He said, should be fine, no problem, blah, blah, blah. So, that's the only, I did it for, and then I was like, oops, I made a mistake and then you all were gracious enough to extend some time. But I don't want to be considered an offender. Do you know what I mean? Like, I knowingly did something that was out of compliance. But the point is, is when I first came and met you guys, I was like, first of all, it's beautiful. Second of all, I love the city. I, and I just had me, grew an affinity towards doing this and being a part of it and I have a, I'm a CEO of the company and I live right next door to it. So I'm right at New York Ave and Maine and I love downtown. I have all my kids. I bought another property a quarter mile away and it was, it was owned by a hoarder and I, with all permitting and all compliance, got it renovated and now it's, now it's nicer in the community. I love the city. I love things being, looking nice and being proper and like not being stupid and gross and weird. I also have a ton of love in my heart for people. So I understand the compassion when people mess up but don't do it on purpose or, you know, there's the human aspect. So, I was sitting in here one of the other times looking at, oh my God, I want to be on a board. I want to help. So I was looking and I was like, this one's available and that's, that's the story of how I got here. It's, I don't have any ulterior motives. I don't have any plans in the place where I need to, you know, be, just want to be involved. So.
Okay. So, so you understand that if any of your properties came before the board, if you come on through the board, council will go over what you can and can't do, what conflicts of interest are involved. The sunshine laws, all of that. My question for you is we meet in the afternoon. Is that going to be a problem? No,
I've been here many times. I'm three minutes away. Okay. No problem.
And, and since you've been here before and you've witnessed our work, you're familiar with what we're doing. Do you have any questions for board members? I guess I do have a question.
So the company I work for, I don't own it. It's Body Health. We're a supplement company and we bought the Energy Emporium and we turned it into what it is and we have the other pie-shaped property that we're going to do something with at some point. I also, as a human, just as a local citizen, I might want to buy another property and renovate it or I might want to do something and is there any, there shouldn't be, would there not be, body health related is not me. Me personally, yes, absolutely. But is there any issues with conflicts or any problems with being a business CEO and a resident and wanting to do projects?
Well, I think council can speak to that but what's happened in the past is people just recuse themselves from any cases where there's a potential conflict or even the appearance of a conflict.
That was my only question.
Yeah, it would have to be on a case-by-case basis. We would have to evaluate whether there would be any conflicts. Okay. And we'll have you recuse yourself, sign a form, we'll go through the process with you.
If there's forms involved, I'm going to recuse myself right now.
Okay. Do other board members have questions? Sorry. Okay. So the process is, we don't make the decision. We just forward a recommendation onto the city commissioners and they'll decide. Sure. Do we need to make a motion to forward? It's a recommendation.
Yeah. So...
Okay, so...
I would report it to the city clerk. The next thing they do is they put it on one of their agendas. Great. And then the commission has the ultimate authority to approve.
Fantastic.
Do we need to do a roll call?
I don't think so.
Okay.
We can, though. We can. You don't have to. Just have a motion and a second for the recommendation and that's all.
I'll entertain a motion then.
Jamie Ballard, I make a motion to recommend Chris Alexander. Is that correct? Chris Alexander for the board, the open board position for the code enforcement board.
I'll second that. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Congratulations.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Thank you. The city clerk will be in touch with you.
I'm around.
And I apologize for that. I really thought that was the other gentleman here.
He does look a little like him. Right? He does.
He kind of nodded.
He does.
That's so good.
Okay, so we need to make a motion to adjourn.
Lisa Hunt, motion to adjourn.
Thank you. Second?
Jamie Ballard, second.
All those in favor? Aye.
Aye.
It concludes our meeting at 2.50 p.m.