I don't see any unfamiliar faces here, but just for the record, please turn off your phones or any other digital devices. And when you do come to the microphone to speak, please eat the mic. And for the benefit of those who are transcribing our hearing today, please state your name for the record. Thanks. Ms. Ballard will commence the meeting with a call to order. 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 that obligation, all parties or their representatives will be allowed the opportunity to be heard on matters relevant to the alleged violation. All witnesses offering testimony or presenting evidence will be required to swear or affirm that the testimony they offer is the truth. The City, through its staff, will present its evidence and 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 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 the finding of fact, conclusions of law, affirmative action to be taken. The order will be forwarded to the respondent by certified mail. We can continue. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is an opportunity for citizens to address the board for items that are not on the agenda. I don't see anybody here who might want to speak. The next item on the agenda, moving on to the consent agenda, would be the approval of the minutes to last month's meeting. They were all circulated to members of the board beforehand. I'll make a motion. Jamie Ballard to approve the minutes as submitted. Jeremy Reynolds, I second. Thank you. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. The motion passes and the minutes are approved. The next item on the agenda would be the swearing in of staff and any public who are going to be testifying before the board this afternoon. We might set an all-time record this afternoon. There are no affidavits of compliance on the agenda. Is that correct? Thank you, Ms. Phillips. Okay. Old business. Who is speaking to this? This has been postponed to the December hearing. Okay. New business. Thank you. Ms. Laurel? Our screen's up here. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Good afternoon, board members. My name is Rachel Laurel. I'll be showing you a PowerPoint presentation for the property located at 1440 Wildwood Court. Case number 26981. The respondent is Robert E. Gibson, Jr. and Pamela A. Gibson. They reside at 1440 Wildwood Court. The zoning is single-family home in the R60 zoning district. Number of violations are 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, or land, or premises in city to allow weeds, grasses, or turf to grow up on such lot, parcel, of land, or premises to a height exceeding 10 inches. A second violation is of DCO section 105-27.1.1.1.1.1, paren A, paren 4, zoning district design standards, site standards for housing and duplexes, right-of-way standards. Vegetation adjacent to public sidewalks and streets shall not encroach onto the sidewalk except that turf or turf grass and ground cover should be trimmed to the edge of the sidewalk or street surface. The branches of trees or other vegetation grown above any sidewalk shall provide a minimum clearance of 8 feet above grade. A notice of violation was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner on September 18, 2026, with a compliance date of September 28, 2026. The certified mail for the notice of violation to the owner was returned to the office on October 21, 2026, at 3.24 p.m. A notice of hearing was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner on October 21, 2026. And the certified mail for the notice of hearing to the owner was delivered on October 23, 2026, at 4.27 p.m. My initial inspection was done on September 10, 2026. You can see the property is overgrown and the grass is growing across the sidewalk. Here's another picture taken showing it's growing into the street. Here is the back of the property. This property backs to County Road 1, and you can see in the backyard, the grass is overgrown, exceeds 10 inches. So on September 18, 2026, a notice of violation was posted to the property. You can see the grass is longer and growing into the sidewalk and street. Here's a picture of the backyard. The grass exceeds 10 inches. So here's a picture of my affidavit of posting and notice of violation posted to the front door on September 18, 2026. And here's a close-up picture of that affidavit of posting and notice of violation. Here is the certified mail returned to the office, which was on October 21, 2026. Re-inspection date after the notice of violation compliance order shows that the grass is still growing into the street and across the sidewalk. Here's the back of the property taken on October 1, re-inspection date showing the grass is still overgrown in the rear. And October 20 is the re-inspection that was taken before my posting of notice of hearing, showing that the front of the property was mowed, but the back was not. It was still overgrown. So October 21, 2026, a notice of hearing was posted on the property, showing still the same conditions as the day before. So here's a picture of my affidavit of posting, notice of hearing, taken on October 21, 2026 at the front door. And here's a close-up picture of my affidavit of posting and notice of hearing. And this is showing that the certified mail for the notice of hearing was signed for on October 23, 2026 at 4.27 p.m. Here is a picture on November 2. The property is still in compliance. The grass is starting to grow in the front. And here's a picture of the backyard. These pictures were taken yesterday, November 2, showing that the property is still overgrown in the rear. So I'll leave it to the board to deliberate. Excuse me. There are two DCO sections on the same case. Yes. Are you going to speak to the second violation, or are you saying that both of these sections apply to the overgrown plant material? Okay. Thank you. And in the street. Can you tell us something about the people who live there? They're not here. Have you spoken to them? Yes, I spoke to them. I spoke to Robert the day that I posted the notice of violation. He told me that he does not have a lawnmower, and he cannot afford to pay someone to mow the grass. So I've had issues before with the overgrowth, which is why this property is brought before you. I don't know how the front was mowed, but I spoke to him today. He says he could not attend for health reasons, and that he is looking to hire someone to mow the backyard and to clean up the backyard and also fix the fence, which will be the next case. And I discussed my recommendation with him, and he agrees within that timeframe. He believes he can come into compliance. We haven't gotten to that part yet. Other board members with questions for the inspector? No? Do you have a recommendation? Yes. A recommendation in case number 26-981 with two violations of DCO Section 34-31, environment, excessive growth of weeds, grasses, or turf, and DCO Section 105-27.1.1.1, paren A, paren 4, zoning district design standards, site standards for housing and duplexes right-of-way, requesting compliance on or before November 3rd. November 13th, 2026, which is 10 days from today's board hearing, or a fine up to $250 per day per violation. Question for counsel? Does that recommendation comply with the requested changes you had mentioned at our last meeting? Yes. Okay. November 13th. And the respondent is in agreement with that? Yes. Okay. I'll entertain a motion if there are no questions. Question? We've got two different violations on that. It looks like they fixed the one with the grass growing over the sidewalk, but they're still in violation on the not mowing the back half. So do we need to do like an affidavit of compliance for fixing the overgrowth on the sidewalk? My concern would be that if he repeats and grass grows over the sidewalk again, at that point it should be a repeat violation, correct? Do I understand that right? He didn't come into compliance by the compliance date. So it was after the compliance date that he edged, trimmed the grass. Yeah. So shouldn't the treatment to the two different violations be different then? Shouldn't it be different? Yeah. Yeah. So you've got one for grass over the sidewalk. You have one for grass too long. Right. And if he comes into compliance before the hearing date for whatever we issue, generally we accept an affidavit of compliance. Do I understand that correctly? A declaration of violation. Yeah. Yeah. A declaration of violation. So right now we're giving him time to bring what he's already brought into compliance into compliance because we're grouping those together under the same motion. So my question is, should we treat those two violations differently since one's already been cured prior to today's hearing? It was abated prior to today's hearing but after the compliance date of September 28th. I understand your point. It's well taken. And that's why I asked about the two different code section violations because I thought one just applied to the sidewalk. Ms. Phillips, do you want to have a pine on this? Yeah. Would you be willing to amend your motion to split that? I'd be happy to second it. So 3431 would be the excessive growth. That is not in compliance. Correct. Thank you. Second, please. Jeremy Reynolds, I second. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Gillette. Aye. Mr. Walensky. Aye. Ms. Ballard. Aye. Mr. Sweetser. Aye. Mr. Reynolds. Aye. Chair Stone. Aye. And the motion passes. Now do we need a second motion on the other violation? And motion. Yes, we do. We do. Okay, cool. Are you doing it, Matt, or are you doing it? Who's doing it? I can do it. That's going to be motion template number two. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Ballard. Jamie Ballard, I move in case number 26981 for the property located at 1440 Wildwood Court. Find the respondents, Robert Gibson and Pamela Gibson, was in violation of the City of Dunedin Code section DCO section 105-27.1.1.1.1 peren A peren 4, but has come into compliance. I'm sorry. And did not correct the violation on it before the compliance date of September the 28th, 2026, but has come into compliance before November the 2nd, so no fines are assessed. As a first-time violator, if the respondent is found in violation of Code section DCO section 105-27.1.1.1 peren A peren 4, again within five years from the date of this order, an immediate fine of up to $500 per day may be imposed. Jamie Reynolds, I second. Thank you. Mr. Gillette. Aye. Mr. Walensky. Aye. Ms. Ballard. Aye. Mr. Sweetser. Aye. Mr. Reynolds. Aye. Chairstone. Aye. And the motion passes, and an order will issue. That brings us to the next case, number 26-982, City of Dunedin versus, again, Robert and Pamela Gibson, concerning the property located at 1440 Wildwood Court. Ms. Laurel, are you also speaking to this? Yes. Thank you. 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 for the property located at 1440 Wildwood Court, case number 26-982. Respondent is Robert E. Gibson, Jr. and Pamela A. Gibson. They reside at 1440 Wildwood Court. Zoning is single-family home in R60 zoning district. Number of violations are 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. Notice of violation was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner on September 18, 2026, with a compliance date of October 18, 2026. Certified mail for the notice of violation to the owner was returned to the office on October 21, 2026, at 3.24 p.m. Notice of hearing was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner October 21, 2026. And the certified mail for the notice of hearing to the owner was delivered October 23, 2026, at 4.27 p.m. My initial inspection was done on September 10, 2026. You can see a section of the fence was missing. So on September 18, 2026, a notice of violation was posted. You can see the section of the fence is still missing. And here is my affidavit of posting, and here is my affidavit of posting, a notice of violation posted to the front door. And here is a close-up picture. Certified mail was returned to the office October 21, at 3.24 p.m. A re-inspection after my notice of violation was done, and the section of fencing is still missing. October 21, October 21, was the posting, a notice of hearing. And here is a picture of my affidavit of posting, a notice of hearing, on October 21, 2026, attached to the front door. And here is a close-up picture of that notice of hearing. Certified mail shown it was delivered on October 23, 2026, at 4.27 p.m. Here is a re-inspection that was done yesterday, November 2, showing that the section of fencing is still missing. I spoke to the property owner, Robert, when I posted my notice of violation. He says that he didn't have the money to purchase a new fence post until the 5th of this month, when he received his Social Security check, and I spoke to him today. He says he couldn't attend for medical reasons, but my recommendation, he'll be able to meet. He's going to be hiring people to repair the fence. My recommendation, case number 26-982, number of violations 1, IPMC, section 302.7, accessory structures, as adopted by Dunedin Code of Ordinances, requesting compliance on or before December 3, 2026, which is 30 days from today's board hearing, or a fine of up to $250 per day. Questions for the inspector? I have one question, but I know that there's a section of our code that deals with repairing or replacing existing fences. Is there a particular reason why this was charged under the IPMC section instead of that one? That's the section that we use. Okay, so I'm thinking of the same thing. It's like something like 50-linear foot. What sticks in my mind is that you don't have to pull a permit if it's under a certain number of feet of what you're replacing. Correct. Okay. He doesn't need a permit. This fence came down. It's been up and down since the hurricane. He needs to repair it. He needs to replace that post. There's a problem with the post. Gotcha. So not the section of fence. It's a single fence post that needs to be replaced. And he doesn't have enough money right now for the post. Any other questions for the inspector? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Jeremy Reynolds, I second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. The motion passes and an appropriate order will issue. I believe that concludes the new business on the agenda. We're up to item number six, other business. An opportunity for board members to make comments. Are there any? Go vote. Go vote. Okay. Would the city attorney also like to weigh in? Just a really good job on that first case. Staff? I have nothing. Thank you. Okay. So our next meeting then will be on December 1st, 2026 at 2 p.m. We'll see you all then. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn at 2.25. That clock is correct. So my move that we adjourn. Second. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.