I chair of the Code Enforcement Board for the City of Dunedin. It's 2 o'clock and we're going to get started. If you have a phone or any other digital device, please put it on do not disturb or silent. If this is your first time here and you'll be speaking, our meetings are transcribed and it's much easier for the people doing that if you speak directly into the microphone. If you sit back here, it doesn't get picked up. So eat the mic. Our first item of business is the call to order. Our recently promoted Jamie Ballard is going to do that for us, please. For those of you who don't know me, I'm Vice Chair Jamie Ballard. 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 of the alleged violation. After the City has completed its presentation, the respondent shall be afforded the opportunity to present its evidence. Any member 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 findings of fact, conclusions of law, affirmative action to be taken. The order will be forwarded to the respondent by certified mail. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is an opportunity for citizen input. This is an opportunity for people here to speak to items that are not on the agenda. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak? No? Okay, we'll move on. The next item would be our consent agenda. The first item would be approval of the draft minutes to our September meeting. We were talking briefly before our meeting officially started. We did find one typo. Jamie, would you like to speak to it? Sure. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as amended to change vice mayor to vice chair in the last sentence. Jeremy Reynolds, I second. Mr. Olinsky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. The motion passes. Thank you. Sorry about that. The next item on the agenda, the swearing in of anyone who's going to be testifying today. Anyone here in the audience who is going to be speaking needs to be sworn in. Thank you, Julie. Item number three on our agenda would be affidavits of compliance. We have one case. Case number 26-410, the City v. Suncoast Third Trust, concerning the property located at 53 Highland Avenue. Who is going to be speaking? I'm Michelle Gilbert, City of Dunedin Co-Compliance Inspector, testifying in reference to case 26-000410, property located at 53 Highland Avenue in Dunedin, Florida. On July 7, 2026, the hearing board ordered a correction of this violation by July 28, 2026, or a fine of $250 per day per violation would be imposed. I inspected the property July 24, 2026, found the violation was corrected. I'm submitting an affidavit of compliance to this board for the board's approval. As you can remember, too, this was the one we had to bump from last month. Okay? Any questions? Board members, no. I'll entertain a motion to accept the affidavit. Jeremy Reynolds, I move in case 26-410 for the property located at 53 Highland Avenue to find the respondent Suncoast Third Trust. Clearwater Res Trust and James Arfick and Trustee did correct the violation to Deedon Code of Orances Section 34-1A and 34-3-2 on or before the compliance date and to accept the affidavit of compliance. I so move. Jamie Ballard, I'll second. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. And the motion passes and the affidavit of compliance is accepted. Thank you. Moving on to item number four, old business. The first case we have is 26-245, the City of Dunedin v. Iona Capas concerning the property located at 180 Milwaukee Avenue. Who's speaking to that? Michelle? Hi, I'm Michelle Gilbert, City of Dunedin Code Compliance Inspector testifying reference to case 26-245, property located at 180 Milwaukee Avenue, Dunedin, Florida. At the August 11, 2026 hearing, the board ordered a correction of the violations by August 28th of 2026 or a fine of $150 per day per violation shall be imposed. I inspected the property September 4, 2026 and found that the violation remained. I'm submitting an affidavit of noncompliance to the board for the board's approval. I do have photos if you need to see them. I think we should. And this is for case 26-245 at 180 Milwaukee Avenue for affidavit of noncompliance. Here's the photos to present. So a re-inspection was found, done on September 4th to find that the grass was cut but the parking area remained in violation. The gravel needs to be contained on all sides. On the 11th it was re-inspected and you can see the, it's kind of like a landscaping, black landscaping tool that she put in but it was not properly anchored. Anyways, it's coming out of the ground. The grass is growing, overgrown again. And this is on the 18th. The car was covered, was coming off, exposing the entire vehicle. Again, it's not being kept up with the, the grass growing through the gravel or seashells, whatever's there. And then it's not being contained. And this is the 18th as well. The opposite side of the car so you could see. The 22nd, I went back and you can see that the cover that was on the car is off again. It's ripped. This is another, the other side of it showing that the black plastic piece that is meant to contain the shell is not even in the ground correctly still. 28th, the same, it's still sitting the same way with the tarp ripped off the car. She left a nice message on the door for the city saying, profanity, you know, with the F word and Dunedin's, as you can read it, I don't know if you can see it, black marker on the glass. Re-inspection was done on the 29th with the parking violation remaining. The tarp ripped off of the vehicle and the landscaping tool is not in the ground and it's starting to get overgrown with the grass. The 30th remains the same. Now, just also for reference, we also ran the plates again to see if it has at least been, like she was told she had to go down to the DMV, she had to get a plate put on here because it's in our operable vehicle, it was not done and we did that on the September 22nd to verify registration, it was still not registered at that time. And this is... So, what's before us just concerns the parking, not the inoperable vehicle at this time? It's a non-operable vehicle and she did not improve the space correctly. Yes. She can park there, she just has to improve the space and contain it correctly and she did not do that. Okay. And you have a request or a recommendation? My recommendation is an affidavit of non-compliance. So, we need a motion to accept it? Yes, thank you. Okay, thank you. Any questions from board members? No? I'll entertain a motion. Jamie Ballard. I move in case number 26245 for the property located at 180 Milwaukee Avenue to find the respondent. Iona Kappas did not correct the violation of code section. That would be 105-27.1.1.1.1, paren B, paren 1, paren I, paren 3, and IPMC section 302.8, honor before the compliance date, and I'm sorry, I don't remember what that compliance date was. Compliance date was August 28th, 2026. August 28th, 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, any previous violations committed by the violator, this is determined to be a minor violation and a fine of, what is it, $150? $150 per day per violation. Per violation is imposed from the date of August 28th. Well, it would actually start the 29th. 29th, okay, August 29th, 2026, until compliance is met, the respondent is ordered to contact code compliance for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Jeremy Reynolds, I second. Thank you. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. The motion passes and an order will issue. Moving on to Item 4B, Case 26-805, the City of Dunedin v. Julie and Phyllis Williams, concerning the property at 50 Squire Court, who is speaking to this case? That would be me. Just give me one quick second so I can pull up the photos for you. Okay. Thank you. I'm Michelle Gilbert, City of Dunedin Co-Compliance Inspector, testifying in reference to Case 26-805 for 50 Squire Court in Dunedin, Florida. At the September 1st, 2026 hearing, the board ordered a correction of the violation by September 10th, 2026, or a fine of $250 per day per violation shall be imposed. I inspected the property on September 14th and found that the violations, plural, remained. I'm submitting an affidavit of noncompliance to the board for the board's approval. Are you ready to see the photos? Please. I think we should. Okay. Photos are for Case 26-805, affidavit of noncompliance for 50 Squire Court. So here you'll see, and I'm just, I have a couple photos in here for reference purposes. As you know that this is a property that has a lot of issues. So I just want to have all this stuff to show. So on September 10th, the power was off at the house again. And then I did a re-inspection on the 14th. And at that time found that the power was turned back on in the home by the person who was squatting in the house. On the 14th of re-inspection, when we showed up, there was a U-Haul moving van in the driveway and another window that was removed out of the home. And it was laying in the front on the right of way. The re-inspection, there was a ton of personal items in the driveway, the side of the home. Again, the U-Haul was present. They were moving in another person because the person who was squatting there decided that they were going to rent rooms out in the home. And here shows the garage doors half open because there was a boat behind that. And that was one of the reasons why, you know, they were supposed to be behind a six-door privacy fence or off-site. They put it in the garage, but the front of it was still hanging out. So they decided to put a tarp over it. And as you can see, personal items all through the driveway there. What ended up happening was, is the person with the U-Haul changed their mind. They packed their stuff back up and said that they were moving back to the shelter. They weren't going to live there. On the 15th, personal items remained at the side of the home and the garbage and recycle bins were full. And this just shows here, personal items at the side of the home. There's a cooler, a couple of bins. There was a bike laying on the ground there. And that's from people going in and out of the backyard. And the garbage bins and the recycle bins were full again. Another window was removed from the home and just left in the right-of-way September 16th. The 17th, garbage recycle were full, facing towards the home so that it wasn't facing outwards for people to see. And there were still all those other items right at the side of the house, as you can see here. The 21st, personal items remained at the side of the house. All the bins were full, except for the one gray one flipped upside down. Then we had another vehicle in the driveway. This was another person that they were renting a room to, who also decided that they were going to stay there, that they were going to move out as well. And all the personal items remain at the side of the home by the garage. The 23rd, same thing, except the vehicle was gone. And then the window that was out at the roadside was put towards the side of the house to get it out of the right-of-way. On the 25th, there's personal items, again, still remaining at the side of the house. The bins are full of water, as you can see. Buckets of paint. I mean, this is there. It doesn't go away. Again, on the 28th, same thing. Showing, you know, broken wheels. I think that tire actually belonged to one of the trailers that was there, that was removed from. 28th, again. And they just, they line the side of the house with garbage. 29th, the same. The front of the house, there's a bin there upside down. That's been there for about a week and a half. The debris, again, on the 30th. October 1st, all packed up again with everything at the side of the house. Now we've got bins. We've got the broken trailer in the front. As you can see, the first arrow there, the one to the side is bins, five-gallon pails with paint, and then that other bin upside down, and then there's garbage and debris all over the place. And then there's the side. I think they put some of the stuff inside the garbage pails to get it out to the yard, out to the garbage. But that was October 5th, and that is the last that I took pictures of it. I was just monitoring it along the way. So I'm submitting an affidavit of non-compliance for this property. So you twice said that people were considering renting? Yes. And after seeing the condition of the house, I assume they thought the shelter was more attractive? Yes. I mean, they got a puppy in there. He adopted some dog, a different dog. There's dog feces all over the place. I can attest to that because I stepped in it. I mean, it's just everywhere. She hasn't been there. She was arrested and put in jail, and then she got out and then was arrested again within a week later. So she hasn't been there. This young man who's sitting, who's staying there has decided that he's going to be the one that lives in the house. But there's, I mean, that's beyond my control or the city's control at this point. Okay. So you are asking us to accept an affidavit of non-compliance? Correct. Affidavit of non-compliance for the offensive accumulation and premises to be kept clean of offensive accumulation. And the date of compliance was the 10th of September or $250 per day? It was September 10th, 2026, or a fine of $250 per day per violation. So that would be $500 a day because there's two violations present. Okay. Thank you. Board member, care to make a motion to accept? Wilinski, make a motion. I move in case number 26-0 or 805 for the property located at 50 Squire Court to find the resident Julie Williams and Phyllis Williams did not correct the violation of code number DCOSEC 34-1A and DCOSEC 34-32 on or before the compliance date of September 10th of 26 and to accept the affidavit of non-compliance based on the gravity of the violation and the actions taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations committed by the violator. This is determined to be a severe violation. The fine of $500 a day or $250 per violation is imposed from the date starting 9-11-26 until compliance is met. The respondent is ordered to contact co-compliance for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Jeremy Reynolds, I second. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Nay. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. Motion passes in an order will issue. The next case on our agenda is 4C, case number 26-590, the City of Nadeen versus Michael and Tricia McDonald concerning the property at 1082 Mary Jane Lane, who is speaking to the I am. Good afternoon, board members. My name is Rachel Laurel. I am going to be testifying in case number 26-590. The property is located at 1082 Mary Jane Lane in Dunedin, Florida. At the September 1st, 2026 hearing, the board ordered a correction of the violation by September 15th, 2026, or a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. I inspected the property on September 22nd, 2026 and found that the property was still in violation, so I am submitting the affidavit of noncompliance to the board for the board's approval. And I have pictures. This picture was taken on August 3rd. This was, I'm going to be showing you some pictures from the board hearing back on September 1st. This is one of the pictures showing the trailer in the front yard and not being screened. Here's another picture from the PowerPoint presentation taken on August 31st. And this is my re-inspection date after the compliance order. In the picture, you will see where the arrow is, is a makeshift gate that the owner created, I guess, to shield. It's not fencing material. And here's another picture I took on September 25th, showing this makeshift gate that's just leaning there. Here's the picture from yesterday. This is how he plans on shielding it. It's not fencing material, nor has it been permitted. So this makes the property not in compliance. It's not fully shielded. Okay, so your compliance date was the 15th of September. I'll entertain a motion. Jeremy Reynolds, I move in case 26-590 for the property located in 1082 Mary Jane Lane to find the respondents Michael McDonald and Trisha McDonald did not correct the violation of the deed in code section 105-27.1.1.1 subsection B5 and subsection F5 and 7, owner before the compliance date of September 15th, 2026, and to accept the affidavit of non-compliance based on the gravity violation actions taken by the violators to correct the violation and any previous violations committed by the violators. This term to be a severe violation of $5 of $150 per day per violation is imposed from September 15th, 2026 until compliance is met. The respondents are ordered to contact code compliance for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. I so move. Can you amend that to a fine to begin on the 16th? Sure. The compliance date was the 15th. Okay. Jamie Ballard second. Can we confirm that this was a severe instead of minor violation from the first hearing? This was, it was a minor violation? It was a minor violation? Yes. Okay. Jeremy. Okay, I'll amend to minor, but it's Lili D. Mountusane. Thank you. And I'll amend my second. Thank you. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. Our next case is 26-617, the City of Dunedin v. George Bella and Schwalm Holdings, Inc. Mr. Bella was here last month, and there was a young woman with him. Are either of them present today? No, they're not. Okay. Who is going to present on this? I am. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Board. Julie Phillips, Code Compliance Supervisor, and I'll be testifying to Case 26-617 for Front Yard Standards. We just want to make that correct on the agenda. It says Front Yard Setbacks. This is at 1141 Friartuck Lane. And at the Code Board hearing on September 1, 2026, the Board ordered a correction date of September 15, 2026, or a fine in the amount of $150 per day since it was minor. The property was inspected on September 24th, and the violation remains. And I do have photos. I'm sorry. I missed what you said. What was the original compliance date? The 15th of September. September 15th. Thank you. So this is one of the pictures from the PowerPoint done last month on August 25th, 2026. You can see the vehicle is not parked on an approved service, and there's not any type of containment. Again, on August 31st, 2026. I drove to location on September 10th, 2026, and it looked like a lot of the leaves were raked up, but there wasn't any type of mulch or cracked shell or any approved surface put down or contained. Again, on September 24th, 2026, it looks like there was a piece of wood put on the left side of the vehicle, but nothing is contained. It looks like he may have possibly took some buckets and put some mulch or kind of threw it under the car. Again, it's not an approved surface. It's got to be fully contained, and again today, there was a piece of a wood fence, it looks like, put behind the vehicle, and I'm requesting the board accept the affidavit of noncompliance. So am I correct that last month's hearing, Mr. Bellis said the vehicle belonged to a friend and he would have the friend remove it? Is that correct? I believe, but I didn't take him for the vehicle. It was for where he's parked and how he's parked. Okay. All right. I'll entertain a motion to accept the affidavit of noncompliance. Walensky, I move in case number 26-617 for the property located at 1141 Friartuck Lane. I did not correct the violation code section DCL section 105-27.1.1.1H and to accept the affidavit of noncompliance 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 is to be determined to be a minor violation, and a fine of $150 per day is imposed from the date of 9-16-26 until compliance is met. The respondent is ordered to contact co-compliance for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Jeremy Reynolds, I second. Catherine? Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Nay. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. The motion passes and an order will issue. We move on to new business. The first case on the agenda, 5A, is case number 26-768, the City of Dunedin versus, oh boy. Chair Stone, may I interrupt briefly? So, before we move into the new business, I just want to make the board aware of a small revision that we, the City Attorney and I, made to motion one new business template. Instead of finding a specified fine amount, we actually amended the language to state, if not in compliance, a fine of up to $250 per day may be imposed by the board at the second hearing. Essentially, this is the procedure that most boards take, and essentially that I represent. It's best to determine the fine amount at the second hearing because you'll be able to see the process, the progress, if any, that the respondent has made during the time that the board assigned for compliance. So, based on the factors that you read, the gravity of the violation, the progress that they've made, and any previous violation, the second hearing is the best time to determine a specified amount. That's why we determined it would be best to make that revision to your first order cases. Okay. What you read, though, differs from what's on my printed copy. There was some additional language that you said after compliance is met. Oh, yeah. That was just part of my explanation as to why we revised it, but that language does not need to be there. If you have, your template should read, if not in compliance, a fine of up to $2.50 per day will be imposed until compliance is met. If that's how your template order reads, that would be the correct template. Got it. Okay. So, I still have to pronounce this person's name. Look. L.F. Therios Zerudakis, 115 Mera Vista Drive in Dunedin. Who is speaking to that? I am. Thank you. And you can correct my pronunciation. Feel free. We're going to keep it simple, and it's Terry Zerudakis, and the respondent is present. Thank you. Sir, were you sworn in earlier? Yes. Okay. Good afternoon, board. Julie Phillips, co-compliant supervisor, and I will be doing a PowerPoint presentation for case 26-768 at 115 Mera Vista Drive, and I will be requesting a declaration of violation. The respondent in this case is Terry Zerudakis. He owns 115 Mera Vista Drive, and this is a single-family home located in the R-60 zoning district. There is one violation at this property for an offense of accumulation. It shall be unlawful for any person to accumulate, leave, dump, or store openly on any premises within a residential zoning classification, any building materials, automobile tires, inoperable or derelict vehicles, and any and all other articles of personal property, which may be seen from the public right-of-way or budding properties for a period greater than three days, unless the storage of such articles on residential premises is specifically allowed under other provisions of the code. Building materials may be stored on residential premises during times of act and construction to structures on the premises. However, any cessation of building activities for a period of 60 days will require the removal of such building materials until active construction is remenced and continued on a daily basis to completion. I posted the property in City Hall with an affidavit of posting and notice of violation. A copy was also sent certified mailed to the owner of record on July 29, 2026, with a compliance date of August 29, 2026. I received the certified mail delivery confirmation for the property owner on July 31, 2026, at 11.28 a.m. This is my certified mail receipt for the notice of violation, and this is also the certified mail for the notice of hearing that was signed. So, on July 28, 2026, this is the front of the property at 115 Mera Vista Drive, I received an online complaint from the neighbor to the east, Enrique Valle. Enrique stated over the past several years the vacant property had been neglected, possibly abandoned. He stated there are construction permits dating back to 2020 with no progress. He stated he was tired of looking at all the building materials and the items stored outside of the property. I drove to the location with Chief Inspector Chuck Pitt and did an on-site inspection. This is the west side of the house. You can see there's some building materials stored there, more building materials. In the back, wood, personal items, sinks. We've got some sandbags, wood, more construction materials, glass, hoses, and a large pile of bricks. And there's additional sandbags that are in the back. On October 29, I phoned the owner, Mr. Zervos, and advised him of the complaint regarding his property. I advised Terry that I posted the vacant property and gave him 30 days to remove the items outside and to find somebody to paint the structure. Terry stated he didn't think it was a good idea to work on the house during hurricane season, and I reminded Terry that most people who suffered damage to their homes by the hurricanes two years ago are still actively working on their property. This is my affidavit of posting and notice of violation, and there's a closer shot of it on the door. On July 30, 26, I received a call from Michael Owen. This is the neighbor of 108 Maravista. Michael wanted to let me know the house was flooded during hurricanes and the owner hasn't done anything to repair it. He stated they wanted to start a neighborhood petition if that's what it took to get it cleaned up. On 825, I received a phone call from the complainant, Enrique, who wanted to let me know the owner, Terry, had started work on the exterior of his home, so I went by and took updated photos. And this is what it looked like on 825. The front of the house was painted. We still had the construction materials on the side of the home and in the back of the home, a large pile of bricks. And on September 13, I received a complaint from Michael Owen, a neighbor across the street, about brush that hadn't been picked up by solid waste. Terry had been in contact with solid waste. It was their mistake. It should have been picked up, but it was not picked up. However, when I went to take a picture, I noticed a gate had been put up on the west side of the property without a permit. I went back to the property on September 16, and I posted the property with a notice of violation for permit required. There's a close-up of my notice. I continued to take pictures to see if there had been any improvements for the offensive accumulation. There were still sandbags and the cinder blocks and the pile of bricks along the fence area. On September 24, I went back to the property, posted it with an affidavit of posting, a notice for today's hearing, close-up of that. And then on October 2nd, Terry did apply for a permit. He did get an issued permit for the gate that was put up on the west side. And he also filled out an application, was issued a permit to install a paver patio in the backyard with the existing bricks that were in the back of the property. And yesterday, I did my final inspection for the offensive accumulation, and the front was well maintained. The items were removed from the back, and the bricks are there and allowed to be there because there's now an issued permit. And at this time, I'll let the board deliberate. So we have two cases on the docket with separate case numbers. We're just addressing right now the offensive accumulation. Correct. And you're saying that the violation has now been abated. It was corrected. Okay. Corrected. So you just want a declaration of violation? Correct. Okay. So my recommendation for case 26768 for one violation, DCO section 34-1 for defensive accumulation. The property is currently in compliance. I'm requesting a declaration of violation. Any future violation of the same ordinance within the next five years by the same property owner will be considered a repeat violation and subject up to $500 per day. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion from the board. That would be motion number two, just in case. Any questions? Yes, Mr. Chair. Well, hang on, hang on. Yeah. Sir, what do you want to say? You can come up here, please. First of all, I want to say thank you to all the volunteers for their service here on this board to the city of Dunedin. And as a volunteer for the community of CRA, veteran of 20 years, I know what it is to work as a volunteer for the city. I think my job here has been, it should be an easy one compared to the other ones that you've done. I've tried very hard to work with Julie to correct all the violations and make everything good. So, you know, I think that it's... Okay. And you understand that their request is just for a declaration. There's no financial penalty being requested. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Would you like the motion, Mr. Chair? Yes, please. Jeremy Reynolds, I move in case number 26-768 for the property located at 115 Mirabista Drive to find that a violation of the City of Dunedin Code Section 34-1 did exist. As a respondent, Eltherio Servadakis did not come into compliance within the time set by the inspector, but to assess no fines of the violation has since been corrected. This declaration serves as notice to the property owner that the next time the property is found in violation of the same section, it may be considered a repeat violation subject to a fine of up to $500 per day. Starting on the day the inspector notices the repeat violation, I so move. Jamie Ballard, I'll second that. Thank you. Catherine, a roll call. Thank you. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. The motion passes and the order will enter. The next case we have on the docket concerns the same respondent and property. Case number 26-770 concerning the property located at 115 Mirabista Drive. Do you have more photos or how do you want to proceed? Good afternoon, board. Julie Phillips, co-compliance supervisor. This is in regards to case 26-770 for the property located at 115 Mirabista Drive, and I will be requesting a declaration of violation. Again, in this case, the respondent is Terry Zervos, who owns 115 Mirabista Drive, a single-family home located in the R60 zoning district. There is one violation at this property, IPMC Section 304.2 Protective Treatment, as adopted by the Dunedin Code of Ordinances. All exterior surface, including but not limited to doors, door and window frames, coordinances, porches, trim, balconies, decks, and fences, shall be maintained in good condition. Exterior wood surfaces, other than decay-resistant wood, shall be protected from the elements and decay by painting or other protective covering or treatment. Peeling, flaking, and chipped paint shall be eliminated and surfaces repainted. All siding and masonry joints, as well as those between the building envelope and the perimeter of the windows, doors, and skylights, shall be maintained weather-resistant and watertight. All metal surfaces subject to rust corrosion shall be coated to inhibit such rust and corrosion. Surfaces with rust or corrosion shall be stabilized and coated to inhibit future rust and corrosion. Oxidation stains shall be removed from the exterior surfaces, and services designed for stabilization by oxidation are exempt from this requirement. I posted the property in City Hall with an affidavit of posting and notice of violation, and a copy was sent certified to the owner of record on July 29, 2026, with a compliance date of August 29, 2026. I received the certified mail delivery confirmation for the property owner on July 31, 2026, at 11.28 a.m. I posted the property in City Hall with an affidavit of posting and notice for today's hearing. A copy was sent certified mail to the owner of record and registered agent on September 24, 2026, and I received the certified mail delivery confirmation for the property owner on September 26, at 12.12 p.m. This is a certified mail receipt, delivery confirmation for the notice of violation, and this is a certified mail delivery confirmation for the notice of hearing. Again, this is the property located at 115 Merritt Vista. My first visit was July 28, 2026, and you can see the peeling and declining paint. These were the soffit that didn't have any paint. You can see the declining and peeling paint at the bottom of the front of the home. Again, in the back of the property, more declining and peeling paint, a better shot of the backyard with declining paint, and the peeling and declining paint on the east side of the property on July 28. I did the affidavit of posting and notice of violation on July 29, 2026. This is a closer shot of my posting. I went back to the property on September 1, 2026, and the property had started to get painted as well as the east side of the property and a portion of the back, but he had not worked on the west side of the property at that time. On September 24, 2026, there was an affidavit of posting and notice for today's hearing. There's a closer shot of my notice. And my final inspection was yesterday, October 5, 2026, and the front of the house had been painted, the east side had been painted, the back was painted, and the west side of the property. And at this time, I'll let the board deliberate. Thank you. Sarah, is there anything you want to say? No? Okay. Okay. So my recommendation for case 26-770, there's one violation, IPMC Section 304.2, Protective Treatment, as adopted by the Dunedin Code of Ordinances. The property is currently in compliance, and I'm requesting a declaration of violation. Any future violation of the same ordinance within the next five years by the same property owner will be considered a repeat violation and subject up to $500 per day. And that concludes my presentation. Wilinski, question? Yes, sir. With that violation, the Section 304-6 exterior walls, is that strictly addressing the peeling paint, or does it also include the boarded-up windows? I did not take him for boarded windows because at that time, I wasn't quite sure what kind of building materials were where, but I can address that at another time. Yeah. I want to apologize for the confusion. I know I put 304.6. I just reviewed the packet. It's 304.2. It's a different code section. Yeah, I apologize. Follow-up to our board member's question. The exterior wall violation that was added in the Notice of Violation, I don't see that in your recommended motion. Are you asking the board to keep that out, or...? It was cited for 304.2 protective treatment. Okay. So there's no 304.6? No. Not at this time. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, John. Any further questions? No. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Jeremy Reynolds, I move in Case 26-770 for the property located at 115 Miravista Drive to find that a violation of the IPMC Section 304.2 did exist. As a respondent, Otherio Servidakis did not come into compliance within the time set by the inspector, but to incest no fines as the violation has since been corrected. This declaration serves as notice to the property owner that the next time the property is found in violation of the same section, it may be considered a repeat violation and subject to a fine of up to $500 per day. Starting on the day, the inspector notices the repeat violation. I so move. The next new matter on our agenda is case. Sir, you're welcome to stay, but your cases are concluded. Case number 26-812, the City of Dunedin versus Realty Income Properties 13 LLC concerning the property located at 1804 Main Street. Who is speaking to that case? I will. Rachel. Good afternoon, board members. My name is Rachel Laurel, co-compliance inspector. I'm going to be showing a PowerPoint presentation, case number 26-812. I'm requesting a declaration of violation. The respondent is Realty Income Properties 13 LLC. Their address is Attention PM Department number 2928-1195-El Camino Real, San Diego, California, 92130. The zoning is SC, which stands for Shopping Center, and that's the zoning district. Number of violations is one of DCO Section 34-31. Environment, excessive growth of weeds, grasses, or turfs. It shall be unlawful for any person who shall own, control, or occupy any lot, parcel of land, or premises in city to allow weeds, grasses, or turfs to grow up on such lot, parcel of land, or premises to a height exceeding 10 inches. Notice of violation was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner and the registered agent on August 19, 2026, with a compliance date of August 29, 2026. Certified mail for the notice of violation was signed for by the owner on August 31, 2026, at 1157 a.m. Notice of hearing was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner and registered agent on September 24, 2026. And as of today, the certified mail for the notice of hearing is still attempting delivery. Here is a picture taken on August 5. This was my initial inspection. You can see the property is overgrown. It exceeds 10 inches. Here's a picture on the sidewalk. This is around the dumpster enclosure. This is the drive-thru. So on August 19, 2026, this is the date of my notice of violation. You can see the property still exceeds 10 inches. I stood in the street taking a picture of the sidewalk in the right-of-way. Here is the front walking down the sidewalk around the dumpster enclosure. And here's the drive-thru. So the affidavit of posting and notice of violation was posted to the front of the building. And here's a close-up picture. Here's a certified mail delivery confirmation that it was delivered to an agent on August 31st at 1157 a.m. This is the re-inspection after the notice of violation. I did reach out on August 6th. I checked our utility account. I found the water was terminated on April 28th. And there was a property manager that was listed on the account. So on August 6th, after my initial inspection, I left the voicemail for her. I never received a return call back. So that's when I posted the notice of violation on August 19th. On August 31st, the certified mail was signed for. And since I did not hear back from that property manager, I googled the property owner's name and found several phone numbers. And I left the voicemail at every one of those phone numbers. I again called the property manager back that was listed on the utility account and left another voicemail. This time she did call me back and she told me she's no longer the property manager for this address. And she gave me the name and phone number for the current property manager. And while I was on the phone with her, I received the phone call from the current property manager. And she told me that she's not local. She is in the state of Florida, but she is not local to this address. So she's not able to keep a close eye on the property. But she was making arrangements to have a vendor take care of the violations. And she asked if I could email her the notice of violations, which I did. And September 10th is the re-inspection after the notice of violation. And I saw that the property was still in violation. Here is sidewalk, street, around the dumpster enclosure. And drive-thru. September 15th, I spoke with the property manager again, who told me the vendor was supposed to be at the property on Saturday, September 12th, to take care of the violations, which I told her that it was not done. And she said she was going to contact the vendor and then call me back and let me know when it will be done. Later that day, on September 15th, I drove by and I saw the vendor was mowing the property. So here is the pictures on September 16th, the day after the vendor was at the property. You can see the property was mowed. The grass was very tall. It almost looks like a hayfield on the right-of-way around the dumpster enclosure. Here is the drive-thru. September 24th, and while I was speaking, I spoke to the property manager on September 16th, told her that the property was mowed, and I explained to her that the property would have to go before the Code Compliance Board, but I was going to be requesting a declaration of violation, and I explained to her the process. She asked if I could send her the pictures of the violation so she could show them to her team. So on September 18th, I emailed her those pictures. So September 24th, this is the date of me posting the notice of hearing, showing that it's still in compliance. Here is the affidavit of posting and notice of the hearing. Here is the close-up picture. And here is the certified mail delivery confirmation shown. It is still in transit and attempting delivery. And on the 25th of September, I sent an email to the property manager, letting her know that I posted the property the day before, and I attached the notice of hearing to the email. This is a re-inspection taken yesterday, show the property is in compliance, but the grass is starting to grow around the dumpster, and I'll leave it to the board to deliberate. Nobody is here for the respondent? No. Okay. Do board members have any questions of the inspector? I have a question. Did you say the water was off? The water was terminated by the tenant in April 28th. Okay. So we have vacant property here? Correct. Okay. Wasn't this property previously cited for the dumpster enclosure? Yes. Yes. Yes. And did that enclosure comply whenever you looked at it? Because the photos make it looks like it might not. Well, we have two cases, Jeremy, so... Good. Yeah, we'll get to that in just a moment. Wait. Curb your patient. That's all I have. Thank you. Okay. So on case number 26-812, I'll entertain a motion. Jeremy Reynolds, moving case 26-812 for the property located 1804 Main Street to find that a violation of the City of Dunedin Code section 34-31 did exist as the respondent Realty Income Properties 13 LLC did not come into compliance within time set by the inspector, but to assess no fines as the violation has since been corrected. This declaration serves as notice to the property owner that the next time the property is found in violation of the same section, it may be considered a repeat violation and subject to a fine of up to $500 per day. Starting on the date, the inspector notices the repeat violation. I so move. Walensky, second. Thank you. Catherine? Thank you. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. The motion passes. The next case concerns the same property. Do you have additional photographs, or are those the same ones? I'm sorry? Do you have additional photographs? Yes. I have a totally new case. Okay. So case number 26-813. 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 case number 26-813. Respondent is Realty Income Properties 13, LLC. Address is Attention PM Department number 2928-11995L, Camino Real, San Diego, California, 92130. Zoning is SC for Shopping Center Zoning District. Number of violations are two. One of DCO Section 105-34.5.2, Maintenance. For all uses, commercial, industrial, and residential, the property owner, tenant, and or agent shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping required by the provisions herein and as follows. Subsection C, all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy, neat, and orderly appearance and shall be kept free from refuse and debris. Number two is IPMC 308.1, Accumulation of Rubbish or Garbage. All exterior property and premises and the interior of every structure shall be free from any accumulation of rubbish or garbage. Notice of violation was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner and registered agent on August 19, 2026 with a compliance date of August 29, 2026. Certified mail for the notice of violation was signed for by the owner on August 31, 2026 at 11.57 a.m. Notice of hearing was posted to the property, City Hall, and sent certified mail to the owner and registered agent on September 24, 2026. Certified mail for the notice of hearing is still attempting delivery as of today, October 6, 2026. August 5 is my initial inspection, which shows the shrubs overgrown, grown into the parking areas and parking spots. Both the shrubs and the shrubs and the shrub is overgrown by the dumpster enclosure is a shopping cart filled with debris. There's been issues with homeless people living inside the dumpster enclosure, according to the property manager. Here's another picture inside the dumpster enclosure. Here's another picture. Wood, cardboard. There is a palm tree in the driving lane leading up to the drive-thru that's growing into the driving lane. And this is the date, August 19, of my posting of notice of violation, showing no change. Now, again, like in the previous case, I checked the utility count, made a phone call to the property manager, left the voicemail. So, therefore, on August 19th, I posted my notice of violation. Here's the dumpster enclosure. Inside, the buckets and wood and signs and some kind of wood structure, tire, trash, wood. The trees are grown into driving lane in the parking lot. Here's another angle of that one palm tree or maybe multiple palm trees growing into the parking lot. Here's the walkway leading up to one of the doors, showing the shrub. And the palm trees are growing into the walkway. Here's another picture of the palm tree in the parking lot in the driving lane. Here's debris scattered into the landscape beds. This is at the front on the Main Street side. Here's another picture of the palm tree growing into the parking spot and the walkway. Here's another angle of that palm tree growing in the driving lane. And this is the palm tree on the drive-thru. Here's the affidavit of posting of notice of violation. Close-up picture of the affidavit of posting and notice of violation posted on the property. Delivery confirmations showing that it was delivered. Here is the re-inspection after the notice of violation. And again, I reached out to Google the telephone number for the property owner, made my phone calls, reached out to the old property manager, and then spoke to the new property manager. And she said she was not local, but going to send a vendor out there to trim the trees and to remove the debris. And this is the re-inspection after the notice of violation showing that nothing has been done. Here's inside the dumpster enclosure. Here's the trees growing into the parking space, walkways. The shrub is overgrown from that angle. And here's that palm tree. Here's the palm tree when you enter the drive-thru. This is a palm tree in the back driving lane of the parking lot. Here's leading to the drive-thru, in the drive-thru. September 16 is the re-inspection after the vendor came to the property. You can see the property is mowed, but he did not trim the shrubs or the trees or remove the debris inside the dumpster enclosure. Again, I emailed the pitchers on the 18th of these pitchers, from the 16th to the property manager. And she was made aware of that the property was going to go before the co-compliance board. You can see nothing has been done. Here's debris on the right-of-way area. September 24 is the notice of hearing. You can see no change. All the debris is still in the dumpster enclosure. Trees are not trimmed. We're maintained. Here's the affidavit of posting, a notice of hearing. Affidavit is a close-up picture. Here's showing that the notice of hearing is still in transit. Here's yesterday's picture showing no change. I drove by today, too. There still has been no change. So now I'll leave it to the board to deliberate. Do any members of the board have any questions for the inspector? What's your recommendation? We didn't get to that part yet. Well, that's my question. Does anybody else have questions? Were there any questions? No? Okay. Do you have a recommendation? Yes. Recommendation for case number 26-813, number of violations 2, DCO, section 105-34.5.2, maintenance, and IPMC, 308.1, accumulation of rubbish or garbage, requesting compliance on or before October 20, 2026, which is 14 days from today's board hearing, or given the severity of the violation is minor, I am requesting a fine in the amount of $150 per day per violation for each day, the violation continues to exist. So we are talking about two violations? Two violations. Okay. And given what counsel said earlier, do we not have to determine a fine amount at this point? Is that what you're recommending? That is correct. We do not have to determine a fine amount. We can ask that the city bring back their fine amount recommendation at the second hearing. That would be the time, the appropriate time for the board to determine the fine amount. That's the small revision that I was talking about earlier. Okay. No. Okay. With that clarification, I'll entertain a motion. Jeremy Reynolds, I move in case 26-813 for the property located at 1804 Main Street to find the respondent for Realty Income Property 13 LLC in violation of City of the Deedon Code Section 105-34.5.2 and IPMC Section 308.1, and order the respondent to come into compliance by removing all rubbish and garbage and bringing the site into conformance with required maintenance standards before October 21, 2026, if not in compliance, a fine of up to $250 per day per violation will be imposed until compliance is met. The respondent is ordered to contact the Code Compliance Office for re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. I so move. Jamie Ballard, second. Thank you. Catherine, parole call. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. The motion passes and an order we'll issue. That concludes the new case business before us on the agenda. The next item is other business. 6A is code enforcement board member comments. In going over the minutes of last month's meeting, there was a request by one board member for an update from, I believe, counsel as to the status of some open cases. Do you have anything to update us on? The only update from city administration that I received pertains to the 50 Squire Court property. That update was that the city manager is looking into the violations and that she is meeting with Pinellas Sheriff's Office to discuss the history of the property. Thank you. That's so far what I have. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any new board member comments? No. I do. I'm sorry. I received a notification regarding the class for the sunshine from the city. They're doing that class. So I am not unable to attend. I'm out of town then. Yeah. So thank you. I actually was going to give a reminder on that. So yeah, I have confirmation from the city clerk's office that meeting is going to be recorded if you can attend. So if you're available, obviously, please plan on attending. But if you're unavailable, the meeting will be recorded. And I'll be happy to share that with you all once the recording ends. Thank you. Yeah, of course. Thank you, Jamie. Any other questions or comments from board members? So is that sunshine meeting or presentation, is that, like, required once a year? Because didn't we just have it? We've had it in the past if you've been serving on the board for a while. We try to have them every year, especially when we have new board members. Really, I don't want to say that it's not required, but it's definitely encouraged for you to come, even if you've been on the board for quite some time. But if you're a new board member or an alternative member that's been more, you know, assisting us with meeting our quorum, then, yeah, please, I do encourage you to come and attend that training. Yeah, I was going to say, the only comment I have is, if you guys, when you put those things together, if you could just structure them in two parts, where the first is, okay, if you've had this before, here's what's changed. And then go into what it is afterwards, that way, if you have people who are... Okay, I can definitely do that. I can rearrange the PowerPoint so that we go through the changes first. That would be awesome. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay, thank you. Does the attorney have any other comments? That's item 6B. No further comments for me today. Okay, staff, comments? I do have one comment. I just want to make sure I understood your change. So I think, I feel like we make changes every time we have a board hearing. So at this board hearing now, we're not giving a recommendation with the fine. So you're asking us to wait until there's an affidavit of noncompliance, if there is. Is that what I understood? Yes, Julie. I'm sorry I couldn't reach you before the hearing to give you a more update. We can talk a little bit more after. Okay. But yeah, that's the revision, that we're going to move that fine determination to the second hearing. So just like when you bring your pictures for that second hearing, just add that. You know, recommended fine amount for the board to evaluate at that time. Okay. So I guess I'm going to request if we keep having those changes, you let me and my staff know before the hearing so we're not always caught off guard. Yeah, of course. I appreciate it. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. So we've had some observers in the back of the room. Do any of you have any questions or comments while you're here? No? I see a head shaking. No? Okay. So our next meeting will be on November 3rd. Isn't that election day? What? It is? Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right. I believe it is. Is that, will Catherine a lot impact what we're doing here? Not, I don't believe so. I'm happy to, if you guys want to change the date of the meeting, I'm, I'm happy to. I think that's more trouble than it's worth. I agree. Yes. So. Kill each other going. But yeah, it is scheduled for the 3rd. I, I, I believe we should be fine. But again, yeah. If you, if you want to change it, I'm happy to let you guys know. Okay. Well, it sounds like we're going to stay with the 3rd. Okay. Is there any other business? Yes. No. No, any comments? Okay. Move to adjourn. Motion to adjourn, please. Second. Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. All those in favor, and the meeting is adjourned at 3.12 p.m. Thank you. All right. Well missed. Not bad. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.