Board. My name is Phil Stone, Chair of the Board. It doesn't seem as though we have any folks here for citizen input, so we'll begin with a call to order. Lisa, will you do the honors, please? Enforcement Board procedures. Oh, sorry. 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 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, uh, period, sorry. After the City has completed its presentation, the respondent shall be afforded the opportunity to present its evidence. Please silence cell phones. Any members of the Board, the person presenting the City's case or the City Attorney may question any witness before the Board. The respondent or his 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, number one, findings of facts, number two, conclusions of law, and number three, affirmative action to be taken. The order will be forwarded to the respondent by certified mail. We will now continue with our hearings. So the first item on the consent agenda is approval of the minutes to the September 2nd, 2025 meeting. Are there any comments, corrections, edits, changes? Jamie Ballard, I move to accept the minutes. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. Okay. Can you swear in everyone who's going to be testifying before us, please? Okay, the next item on the agenda would be the two cases with affidavits of compliance. Who is presenting for the City? Good afternoon, Board. Julie Phillips, Code Compliance Supervisor. And this is in regards to case 24-754, the property located at 1940, Canadiana Court, regarding Code Section 34-1, Offensive Accumulation. At the Board hearing on February 4th, the Board ordered a correction date of March 4th, 2025, or a fine in the amount of $250 per day. The property was inspected on September 8th, and compliance has been met. So I'm requesting that you accept the affidavit of compliance. Any questions for Ms. Phillips? No. I'll entertain a motion. Jamie. Sorry, Jamie Ballard. I move in case number 24-754 for the property located at 1940, Canadiana Court. Sorry about that. Did correct the violations of Code Section 24-754 on or before the compliance date of September? I'm sorry. September 8th. September the 8th, and to accept the affidavit of compliance. Thank you. Do I have a second? Thank you, Matt. All right. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Boldock? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. And the motion carries. We have a second affidavit as well. Are you also doing this one, Ms. Phillips? Yes, sir. Okay. This is in regards to case number 25-1707 for the property located at 2685 St. Joseph Drive East regarding a repeat violation of Code Section 103-14.8.1, transient uses within zoning districts, conditional use bed and breakfast intent. At the board hearing on September 2nd, the board found the respondent to still be in continued violation with an additional website called Captain's Quarters Life Advertising Weekly Rates. The board ordered a continued fine of $500 per day for each day the violation continued to exist. The website advertising on the property was inspected on September 9th, 2025, and compliance was met. The websites were in violation for nine days, totaling $4,500, and the fine has been paid, and I'm requesting the board to accept the affidavit of compliance. Thank you. Do I have a motion, please? Walensky? I move in case number 25-1707 for the property located at 2685 St. Joseph's Drive East. To find the respondent, Dean and Susan Long did correct the violation of code section number DCO section 103-14.8.1 and honor before the compliance date of 9-9-25 and to accept the affidavit of compliance. Do I have a second? Jamie Ballard, I'll second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Boldock? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. And the motion passes. Thank you. So we have no old business. We have no old business before us today. We have new business. Who is presenting for the city? You have the floor. All set. Okay. My name is Michelle Gilbert, co-compliance inspector with the city of Dunedin. This case is 25-1725 for the address of 2490 Tradewinds Drive. The respondent is Matthew Moon, and he resides at 2490 Tradewinds Drive in Dunedin, Florida 34698. The zoning is R60, which is single family residence. The number of violations at the address of 2490 Tradewinds Drive is four. One is Florida Building Code section 105.1, permits required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter repair, remove, convert, or replace any impact-resistant coverings, gas, electrical, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain a required permit. Two, Florida Building Code section 115-3, which is stop work order, unlawful continuance. Any person who shall continue any work having been served with a stop work order, accepts such work that the person is directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition, shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by law. Three, International Property Maintenance Code section 304.7, exterior conditions, roof and drainage. The roof and flashing shall be of sound, tight, and not have defects that emit rain. Roof drainage shall be adequate to prevent dampness and or deterioration in the walls or interior portion of the structure. Roof drains, gutters, and downspouts shall be maintained in good repair and free from obstructions. Roof water shall not be discharged in a manner that creates a public nuisance. And four, International Property Maintenance Code section 304.13, exterior conditions, windows, skylight, door frames. Every window, skylight, door, and frame shall be kept in sound condition, good repair, and weather tight. 304.13.1, glazing. All glazing materials shall be maintained free from cracks and holes. And 304.13.2, openable windows. Every window other than a fixed window shall be easily openable and capable of being held in a position by window hardware. A notice of violation was sent certified mail and posted to property on August 22nd, 2025 with a compliance date of 9-22-2025. A notice of hearing was sent certified mail and posted to property on 9-23-2025. With the notice of violation, we received certified mail confirmation on 8-25-2025 at 3.36 p.m., and then received certified mail confirmation of notice of hearing on 9-25-2025 at 2.37 p.m., stating there was a notice left as there was no authorized recipient available. These show the notice of violation that was sent to August 23rd. This is just the notice violation that was delivered, showing that it was sent to UPS certified mail. And here we have our notice of hearing that was sent certified mail on September 23rd, and then it says no notice left for the authorized recipient available to get the hearing of notice for September 25th, 2025 at 2.37 p.m. This is the stop work order that was posted on 8-20-2025. For renovations, inclusive of an addition off the side, engineering was required per chief building inspector Chuck Pitt. A notice of violation was posted to property 8-22-2025. I'm just going to go back up there. I did put both the chief building inspector's business card in there as well as mine, because he would be the one that would need to be spoken to, because on that day we did speak to the owner and let him know that he did require permits and that he would need to reach out to Mr. Pitt. This is the posting for the notice of hearing on September 23rd, 2025. Again, I left both business cards available for contact for Mr. Pitt. When I was posting to the door, I noticed that there was rafter modifications that were done without engineering on 8-20-2025, and that was off to the side of the home. There's a new AC unit and new AC lines for a mini-split that wasn't connected on 8-20-2025, but they do have an AC window unit on the one side. The Google image from February of 2019 shows there was also a composite roof over the side door entranceway, and you can see in the bushes in the front there. There was a unit, an HVAC unit, present at that time. That was before Hurricane. This shows the new addition from Tradewinds Drive. You can see where the yellow arrow is pointing down, and you can see where the one is pointing up. This composite roof was removed at the side of the entrance. 8-20-25 is when I took this picture. And this is a Google image from July of 2022, showing that the composite roof was still attached over the side door entrance. You can see on both sides where it was attached. There's on this side here, there is a concrete post with three bar on it that was holding it up. Now it's just concrete posts there, no roof. This shows where it was attached. You can see on the side where it was removed. It could have been damaged from Hurricane. So on the front half, this is a Google image from January 2025 facing Baywood Drive north, showing the old portion of the home remaining, and then the new AC unit that was installed without a permit in the front by the blue door there. This Google image is from February of 2019, which depicts a photo of the front porch with the old overhang. Supporting posts are shown to be on a concrete slab in the front, the concrete porch. This is part of the new area that was installed. New front porch area built without a permit, and posts are now on the ground down on the concrete slab. And then you can see the new mini split that was installed. That's picture was taken 8-22-20-25. This is an unpermitted structure, inclusive of new windows, doors, and roof. That's from 8-20-20-25. And I'll leave it to you guys to deliberate. Yes, sir. Okay, so what's going to happen next is that board members will have opportunities to ask questions of the city, and then you'll have an opportunity to come forward and speak. Okay? Does anyone on the board have questions for this city? No? Okay, come on up. And you've been sworn correct? No. Okay, we can start by you stating your name and your address for the record, please. My name is Matthew Moon. My name is Matthew Moon. My ad? No? Sorry. I'm soft-spoken. Matthew Moon is my name. Can you hear? Oh. It's on. Yep. Sorry. You need to have your mouth close to the mic in order for it. As close as I... Okay. My name is Matthew Moon. I live at 2490 Tradewinds Drive, Dunedin 34698. What do you have to say in response to the city's presentation? I'm a little bit taken aback, to be honest. I'd spoken to almost everybody here, except for, I guess, Michelle, more times than I could count while we were in the process of doing all this. I live at the most closely monitored property in all of Dunedin, right next to John Harkin. He burnt his house down about two months after the flood, and code appliance was out there in front of my house every day, sometimes multiple times a day, for months after that. I spoke to every single one of them. They sent two inspectors out while we were in the process of doing it. I explained that it was damaged due to multiple storms, and that I was in a fight with my mortgage company trying to get the money released. I was told multiple times to continue, that everything was okay. I was complimented on the work, and then all of a sudden all this, and honestly a lot of it, I understand you guys aren't driving around every day, but the mini splits, those were existing. I moved them up so that it won't flood. Those have been there since I moved into the house, so I don't really understand what that's about. My carport, which did get damaged in the tornado two years ago, we're not going to put back because every carport in the neighborhood has been ripped off all the houses, so I don't really know why that would be a code violation. Most of the houses, none of them actually have carports other than maybe two. All the other things, like I said, they were all witnessed, and we talked about multiple times over and over and over and over again. I have no problem with an engineer coming out and checking it. It's just that, like I told them the day they came out with the notice, I have no money. I've had to pay for almost everything out of pocket because my mortgage company has been holding up all the funds. I finally got some of them released. I'm still waiting on them to clear, but there's literally nothing I could have done. I couldn't apply for permits. I couldn't have anyone come out. I couldn't fix anything. There's just no funds to do any of that, so I've been waiting since, um, I guess the compliance letter was dropped off to amend all these things, but I just haven't been able to. Is there anything else you want to say to the board? I'm sure I'm forgetting something, but sorry. Okay, board members have any questions or comments for the respondent? Dan Bullock. So really, it's just that permits haven't been applied for? That's correct. Okay. And when the storm happened and everything, the city of Dunedin was waiving permit fees and had waived permit fees and extended the permit fees until April of, the end of April of 2025. So there was no charges, no nothing for any permits there. So they're allowing the work, you know, the people who own the properties to obtain permits and get, you know, get it done. So I don't know this. I spoke to Mr. Moon one time when I was there with Julie, never before. Um, and I don't know who he's speaking of and who he was speaking to before. I don't know. Uh, I have no record of anything else. I only observed what I seen when I was there. Um, I was, uh, helping out, uh, follow code inspector in her, in her zone. Um, so, you know, I observed what I observed and that's the reason why we're here today. So, so in order to fill out the permit, you need a licensed contractor, correct? Yes. And you don't have that? No, I do. I'm just waiting for him to come back. He's working out of state currently and I didn't have the funds to pay him to do any more work. So I see. Okay. So, so he can help you with the permit? Yeah. He's an engineer and a general contractor. Okay. So, um, they will need engineering for this. So, um, I don't know, you know, we understand a lot of stuff goes through insurance. We get that. Um, but I mean, that stuff should be rolled in with all that stuff. Um, I do have our expert witness here today. If, um, he needs to speak for you guys, just to let you know, uh, that that's entirely your discretion, what you need. We just want compliance, you know. Do other board members have any questions? Walter. Walter Sweetser. The question I have is, I can't tell by the photographs and maybe that can be helped with that. It looks like some of the work that's been done without a permit might be difficult at this point to have an inspection. So you'd have to get it verified if there's things that have been covered up. Um, I don't think. Is that being addressed? That's. Everything was documented as it was done, but most of the stuff inside hasn't been sealed up just because simply ran out of money. I only got $25,000 released from the mortgage company and they've been holding all the funds. So I ran out quite a bit ago. Um, I've been doing just finished painting work to try to get the inspection for the last property damage due to Helene, um, which was where most of the funds have been held up. Got that done. It was, um, just interior stuff and now I'm finally able to do all this stuff, but I do have it documented. Um, when it was built and engineered, um, everything was over-engineered. Like I said, the guy that helped me is licensed both in the state, um, and he has an engineering degree. Okay, question. So you said a fellow that helped you was licensed and stuff. Okay, because he's working without a permit, which you can't. Well, to be, to be fair, that was, I think, partially my fault. I think I had a misunderstanding because I remember when that letter went around for our neighborhood, one of my neighbors who is a different type of engineer, he's a civil engineer, was explaining it to me and I think I probably should have read it, but he was saying because of our neighborhoods had so many problems and because of the previous damage due to the valves not working, which is why our neighborhood flooded the first time, that they were going to just waive the permits entirely for us so we could get started because we had, most of the houses have been damaged two years in a row, but that's on me. I didn't really... When did you originally own the property or purchase? About eight years ago. Eight years ago. So the timeline was pointed out shows with Google photographs and a lot of work has been done over the years. It's hard to dispute that. It's all been done very recently. I haven't done anything. I understand. So we're looking at, I take it, an after-the-fact permit process? Well, now it is. Yeah. I mean... And there's stop work orders. Right. Well, the stop work order was posted so that no more work will get done and at that time when we, when my supervisor and I were speaking, please make an appointment with Chuck. Remember I said make an appointment with Chuck. We'll come out, we'll check and we'll tell you exactly what you need to do to get you right. But there's substantial improvement packets that have to be filled out. There's many different things. I mean, I get it. Everybody was affected and, you know, and I feel bad for everybody there that got hit with the storm. But we have to make sure it's done to the Florida Building Code. We have to make sure it's safe. We have to just make sure that everything's done correctly. And that's what we're just trying to achieve. So his first step would be to apply for a permit. And the person, if he's living there and residing there, he can do it as an owner builder. But he will have to have engineering. That's okay. I'm fine with all that. You know, I just didn't have the funds to proceed. So it's like I could ask for them to come out, but then I couldn't do anything. Right. And I think where he lost the translation there was, he could have got a free permit up until April of 2025. And that's where, you know. Yeah. But it's, it's not that I just thought that I'd, I'd have to get the permit and I'd have to do the work. And I was just, I didn't have the funds to continue or to even buy the material. I'd much less hire somebody to help me, you know, make it compliant. Okay. Do, are there other board members that have questions? Yes, Lisa. Lisa Hunt. So is it true that you started it April or before? Did you start this work? Of this year? Yes. Yeah, we started it right after Helene. Okay. So it was like, we were in the middle of it when my neighbor's house burnt down, which was, I think, December, or no, January, sorry. So he started it when there were no permits required, right? Yes. But he just didn't. No, there were permits required. There was no fees. Well, I mean, no fees, no fees. Okay. So then he had to still have the permit. It just didn't cost him anything. Correct. Okay. Sorry. That was a miscommunication for me. I wanted to clarify. Apparently not just only you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I can see why that would be confusing. Yeah. Okay. Any other board members have questions or comments? Well, does the staff have any recommendations? Yes. I was just waiting for you guys to deliberate. All right. Are you ready? Okay. So my recommendations for case 25-12-89, number of violations being four, Florida Building Code 105.1, permits required, Florida Building Code 115.3, stop work order, unlawful continuance, international property maintenance code section 304.7, exterior conditions, roofs and drainage, and international property maintenance code section 304.13.1, one and two, exterior conditions, windows, skylight, and doors and frames glazing, openable windows. Requesting a compliance honorable for November 12th of 2025, or given the severity of the violations as major, I'm requesting a fine in the the amount of $250 per day per violation for each day the violations continue to exist. Now, that being said, we're willing to work with him with the compliance date, but we need to get a permit in place. So... I'm recommending November 12th. So that's another month to get a permit in place. Correct. So your definition of compliance would be obtaining and... Obtaining a permit. ...requesting the permit or obtaining an permit? Obtaining a permit. Once the permit is issued, then I can do what I need to do on my side. And I would, now that it's gone to the board, I would do affidavit of compliance for obtaining his permit. Okay. And do you think five weeks is enough for the city to process the permit application? The city's running maybe seven to ten business days. Okay. Now, the only way they would get hung up is if the engineering, there was something missing from it, or something, you know, they didn't get any Florida product approvals. I mean, sometimes that stuff happens, but generally it's pretty fast. I mean, the girls are pretty on, since we got the new system there. So, um, but as you know, if something's missing, we have to go, it has to go back to whoever's applied and say, this is what we need. Then they have to resubmit that, uh, for review. So it goes in date order received. So we try and get everything all at one time. So the engineer, when he's doing his plans, all that stuff should be listed on there. Okay. And as I read your recommendation, it's $250 per day per violation. So it's a total of $1,000 per day. Sir, do you understand what compliance is expected of you? I don't know that I do. Am I supposed to have all this, like, on permit and fixed before this date? Like, I have five weeks to get all of this done, including the roof? No, you just need to get a permit. Just need a permit. Oh, okay. Okay. All right. Yeah, that's... Correct. It's just, you need to have an approved permit. And if it turns out that there's additional information needed to complete the permit process, you can come before us and ask for an extension, a continuance of the compliance date. Okay. No, that's fair. That makes sense. Okay. I just want to make sure before everybody leaves the room that there's a clear understanding as to what's expected. I understand. Okay. And you understand if it doesn't happen, you're looking at a fine of $1,000 a day total? Yes. Per day. Okay. Any other questions or comments from board members? No? Okay. We have a recommendation from the city. I'll entertain a motion. Don't all speak at once. The first one. The first one. Walensky. Hey, Matt. Yeah. Just make sure. I move in case number 25-1725 for the property located at 2490 Tradewinds Drive, find the respondent Matthew T. Moon in violation of the City Dunedin Code sections FBC 105.1, FBC 115.3, IPMC Section 304.7, and IPMC Section 304.13. Order the respondent to come in, the respondent Matthew T. Moon to come under compliance by pulling the permits for all violations on or before 11-12-25. If not in compliance, a fine of $250 a day will be imposed until the compliance is met. The respondent is ordered to contact the code compliance officers for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. Can you clarify whether that $250 is for all four items or just for one? $250 per day, per violation. Per day. Per violation. Per violation. So I'll need to change that. It must come into compliance by obtaining a permit for the violations before 11-12-25. If not in compliance, $500 of $250 per day, per violation, will be imposed until the compliance is met. Okay. Thank you. Do I have a second? Dan Bolduc second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Bolduc? Aye. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Ms. Ballard? Nay. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Chair Stone? Aye. And the motion passes, an order will issue. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay. We have one more new item. This is case number 25-1650, City of Dunedin versus Bert D. Craftsman concerning the property located at 554 Baywood Drive North. Is anyone here on that case for the respondent? No. No. Okay. Well, let's hear from the City of Dunedin. Who's got it? Good afternoon. I do. Rachel Laurels, City of Dunedin, Co-Compliance Inspector. I'll be showing you a PowerPoint presentation for the property located at 554 Baywood Drive North. The respondent is Brett D. Craftsman. He resides at 554 Baywood Drive North. The zoning is single-family home in the R-60 zoning district. Number of violations are one of DCO section 105-27.1.1.1.1, paren F, paren 1, and paren 5, zoning district, design standards, site standards for housing and duplexes, utility trailers, boats, recreational vehicles, and other recreational equipment standards. Subsection 1, 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 four hours maximum is taken place. Subparound 5, 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 to the property to the property in City Hall and the copy was sent certified mailed to the owner on July 25th, 2025 with a compliance date of August 2nd, 2025. August 2nd, 2025, certified mail delivery confirmation for the notice of violation was returned to the office on August 22nd, 2025 at 2.36 pm. A notice of hearing was posted to the property in City Hall and the copy was mailed certified mailed to the owner on September 24th, 2025. As of today, the certified mail delivery confirmation for the notice of hearing is still attempting delivery to the owner. This case was started on July 23rd, 2025. I was brought to the property because of a complaint from a neighbor regarding the RV overgrowth and debris on the property and I noticed the boat trailer in the front yard. This was on July 23rd. I spoke to the owner Brett Craftsman about the violations and he said he was going to be taking care of it. He said there is an issue with his boat which is being it's in the water behind the house and that he needed to get assistance from a friend to be able to bring the boat around and get the boat out more or less the boat is stranded behind his house. That's what he told me the reason why the boat trailer is there without the boat. On July 25th, a notice of violation was posted to the the property City Hall, mail certified to the owner. I called the owner again to discuss the notice and the compliance date. Here's a picture of the affidavit of posting and notice of violation and here's a close-up picture. Here is the banner page and the certified mail that was returned back to the office on August 22nd at 2 30 uh 2 36 p.m. A re-inspection after the notice of violation was conducted on August 4th to show that the boat trailer was still in the front yard. August 15th another re-inspection the boat trailer is still in the front yard. August 25th this is the day of the posting of the notice of hearing the boat trailer is still in the front yard. Oh no I apologize that was a re-inspection September 12 2025 was another re-inspection September 19th was another re-inspection boat trails still in the front yard September 24th this is the day of the posting of the notice of hearing. Here's a close-up picture of the notice of hearing. Here's the banner page and certified mail uh showing uh today that the notice of hearing is still attempting delivery and here's the picture as of today the boat is the boat trailer is still in the front yard. So I've had numerous conversations uh by phone and by email and I've been told that he was working on removing the boat trailer and then our communication stopped and the boat trailer is still in the front yard and I'll leave it up to the board to deliberate. Thank you. Questions from the board for the city inspector? Uh Dan Bolduc um you said the boat is in the backyard? Yeah that's what he told me that the boat is in the backyard the boat trailer is in the front yard and it needs to wait for high tide and friends to somehow move the trailer to wherever he's launching or being able to get the boat out. The boat is stranded and was damaged in the hurricane. Okay. So in my communications with him he kept telling me that he was working on it and that was it I warned him that the property was going to go before the code compliance board and he has not responded since. So the boat is in the backyard on the ground. I in the canal. In the canal. Okay. I have not seen it. I have not gone in his backyard. Okay. I'm going by what he told me. Because it has been an issue an ongoing issue for the city Dunning residents to find ample parking for boat trailers campers etc. Um it makes it very difficult for him to move it sounds the boat off the ground onto the trailer and then get it out of there right. So. That's what he told me. It's been going on since July 23rd. So it's been going on for quite some time. So he has ample time to get a group together to. Did he mention that where he was storing the boat trailer like he just no longer has parking for it because it doesn't look like it would fit behind that six foot fence. It doesn't look like it's wide enough to get that. No I've written him up with the boat trailer in the past and he's always removed it. Um he stores it off site. I don't know exactly where. Okay. So he has a location. He just has to get the boat on it. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. Any other questions from board members? No. Does the city have a recommendation? Yes. Uh recommendation for case number 25-1650. Uh one violation of DCO section 105-27.1.1.1 paren f paren 1 paren 5 zoning district design standards site standards for housing and duplexes utility trailers boats recreational vehicles and other recreational equipment standards requesting compliance honor before october 17th 10 days from today's board hearing or given the severity of the violation is minor. I am requesting a fine amount of 150 dollars per day for each day the violation continues to exist. Thank you. Do we have a motion? I'll motion. Dan Boulder. Thank you. I move in case number 25-1650 for the property located at 554 baywood drive north find the respondent brett d krasman in violation of the city of dunedin code sections 105-27.1.1.1 f paren 1 paren and 5 to come into compliance by october 17th if not in compliance a fine of fifty dollars per day will be imposed until compliance is met the respondent is ordered to contact the code compliance office for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. So your motion differs from the recommendation and the fine amount? Correct. $50 per day. Okay. Jamie Ballard. I'll second that. Thank you. Roll call please. Mr. Gillette. Aye. Mr. Bolduc. Aye. Mr. Walensky. Aye. Ms. Hunt. Aye. Ms. Ballard. Aye. Mr. Sweetser. Aye. Chair Stone. Aye. The motion passes and an order will issue. Thank you. So that concludes the cases that are on the agenda. We do have a special item before us today. It's good to see that everybody on the board is here including our two alternates as well as the code inspectors. We're going to hear from these counsel for the board at a meeting three months ago now. A request was made that information be given to the board regarding possible other sanctions that could be imposed in order to achieve compliance with the code and city ordinances. There was a sense on the part of several board members that our hands were somewhat tied when it came to certain cases and certain respondents who had been before us on more than one occasion. So I'm going to turn it over to counsel and discussions before the formal meeting began. It was agreed that her recommendations would be provided also in written form and they would be attached to the minutes of the meeting. Thank you. So following our August board meeting, city attorney and myself met with city staff and the city code officers. I believe that was in August 18th to discuss some of the additional methods that we could utilize to achieve compliance on some of these cases. And what I mean by these cases, usually we're talking about that specific case when you have an ongoing violation. Usually the property for which the violations are tied to are homesteaded, meaning they're protected under the Florida Constitution against a potential foreclosure. And as well, given our limitations on the time period for which the fines may accrue, that can kind of take away from that initial incentive to come into compliance because you kind of know what that maximum fine amount is going to be given the 20-day maximum period. So we went, we did a little research, and I just wanted to start, you know, we discussed this in length with city staff, but I wanted to start by just going over our traditional method, which is this board, right? So you think about, okay, what are the tools in our toolbox to incentivize compliance? And mainly that's going to be the accrual of the fines, of the fine amount. In other jurisdictions, let's just take it for an example, we don't, they don't, they don't have the 20-day maximum cap, right? So it would allow other jurisdictions to incentivize compliance by allowing that daily accrual, and sometimes that could last up to months and years. However, given that Dunedin adopted this maximum fine amount, we're kind of stuck in this kind of, in these limited circumstances, right? So what are some other methods? I think we've talked initially about foreclosure, right? So once that second order is recorded, and the lien remains unpaid after the three months, the city is able to bring a foreclosure action against non-homestead properties. However, I think before maybe the initial thought, and maybe the understanding of some of the board members is that foreclosure can only be brought against the property for which the violations are tied to. But actually foreclosure, as it's provided for under the Florida statute, can be brought against any property, non-homestead property of the property owner, the respondent violator that he owns at the time that that second order is recorded and becomes a lien. So if that property owner may have additional real property in the county or the state, and that real property is indeed not homestead, the city would have that option to bring the foreclosure action after that three-month period from the recording date has elapsed. And obviously the lien, you know, hasn't been paid till that date. So foreclosure is that kind of first additional method that I wanted to touch upon. Once again, this is available to the city. So I just want to reiterate that this is outside of the board's purview or authority. This is an action that the city has to weigh in a cost-benefit analysis and decide, okay, a foreclosure action means, you know, we're incurring costs in court, we're incurring attorney's fees. But given the lien or given the nature of the violation, we still think that this, you know, this could incentivize the property owner to bring the property into compliance. Additionally, if the property owner were to seek a reduction, you know, if, you know, a foreclosure action were indeed to be initiated, they would need to come into compliance in order to avail themselves of that possibility of reduction, right, for how we have it drafted. So that adds to that incentive to come into compliance. An additional method, once again, is a money judgment. We can go after the property owner himself. And usually we can utilize this tool when we have a property owner that where the violations that occurred, that property indeed has a homestead status, which means it's protected from foreclosure. But we can go after the property owner himself for a money judgment on that lien amount, on the outstanding liens. And once again, if that property owner wants a reduction in the lien amount, they're going to have to bring the property into compliance. Once again, this won't force the property owner to correct the violations, but it will incentivize through the payment of this outstanding lien force. Now, another option, we talked about those first two options, cost-benefit analysis applies to both. And it is within, you know, the city's toolbox, not necessarily within the board's toolbox, but the city's toolbox. Another additional option would be seeking an injunction in civil court. Once again, we have the cost-benefit analysis. Why? Because we're in court, we're incurring costs, we're incurring attorney's fees. But this is an additional tool that could be warranted in certain cases where we have an ongoing violation for months and years, and the property owner simply is not incentivized to correct them. Now, when it comes to injunctions, you know, I want to touch upon that this is a high threshold, right? The city bears the burden of meeting this threshold in a courtroom. And I think we touched upon this during our meeting with staff. But first, you need to prove that there's no adequate remedy at law. Simply, and just to simplify it the best I can, money can't fix this issue. That's usually what that means. And irreparable harm, the city has to prove, hey, court, if you don't grant us an injunction, we'll suffer irreparable harm. And we like to use that example of the 100-year-old tree that gets cut down by the property owner without the city approval or the required permits by the city. Why? Because you can't replant the 100-year-old tree with the 300 branches, right? You can't replace that specified tree. This is unique property that can be replaced. That's the irreversible damage. So it is a high threshold. It's not going to apply for every single case. It's not going to apply for every single violation. But there may be some that may fall within, that may meet this threshold, the irreparable harm threshold. And could potentially, the city could avail himself of a civil action for an injunction. We have prohibitory injunctions, and we also have mandatory injunctions. So I know we like to think, when we think about injunctions, we usually think, okay, stopping the offensive conduct, forcing the respondent, defendant to force the offensive conduct. But we can also obligate the respondent through a mandatory injunction to correct a specific offensive conduct, which in our case would be a city code or a city ordinance violation, right? Once again, there are some limitations that we have. The cost benefits, the cost, attorney's fees. And once again, this is outside of the board's purview. These are additional tools available to the city that city staff can bring forward before city commission, before the appropriate authority. But this is, once again, outside of the board's authority. The board's authority is limited to that accrual of the fines. This is per state law. And then under your city code, you're further limited by that 20-day cap. Unfortunately, this is the reality. And this is your limitations that you operate within. These are additional tools that the city and city staff can work to operate for these specified cases. I know, I believe they're somewhere identified. These are not going to be the majority of your cases. These are essentially really the minority of the cases. But there are some additional options there. Lastly, well, additionally, I wanted to talk about the supplemental enforcement, which is, the code enforcement is part one, like how we like to say part one of 162. Supplemental enforcement is part two of 162, which has not been adopted officially by the city code of ordinance, I believe so. But, essentially, the code officer, you know, observes the violation. And instead of referring that case to the board, they can issue a citation or they can issue a notice to appear in front of a county judge. At that time, the respondent defendant may show up in front of a county judge, plead, you know, however he would like to plead, contest the citation or plead guilty and pay the fine. What I tend to see in my limited experiences with citations and notice to appear, it's that usually with these respondent defendants showing up in these mandatory court appearances, they, you know, in order to avoid those appearances, in order to avoid pleading a case to a judge, they tend to come into compliance way before we even reach any type of, you know, trial preparation for these cases. But, once again, we're in court, attorney's fees, we're prosecuting a case. And, usually, our office, you know, the city attorney's office would act as that prosecuting agency for these type of citations. We'll help staff with that. Usually, we'll bring them in during the pretrial conferences and further on. Now, once again, if the city would like to adopt the supplemental route, it would have to pick one or the other, right? Either refer the case to the board or issue a notice of citation or a notice to appear and officially have to adopt that supplemental method in their code, which means it has to go before the city commission, right? This has to be added to the code. Now, lastly, and this brought up because one of the fellow members did bring up, and I do remember, what about, you know, public nuisances, you know, through the abatement process? So, public nuisance is enacted in your code. The city, so your code enforcement officer, open observation of a violation that he or she reasonably believes to be a public health impairment. That's your standard under a public nuisance, public health impairment. If she or he determines there is a public health impairment, open observation of the violation, they can refer it to the city manager. So, it doesn't get referred to you guys. This is something now, once again, outside of the board's purview. It gets referred to the city manager. The city manager, you know, will go through the evidence presented by the code officer and make that same determination, that same finding again, and usually a notice of violation or, you know, it's not exactly a notice of violation, but it's very similar to a notice, but, and I, you know, if staff wants to go in and correct me, but how it's written in your code, city manager will issue notice with the nature of the violation, the code citation, explaining why is the public nuisance, and providing a 20-day compliance. So, it's already on your code how long they have for compliance. It's 20 days for these public nuisances that are indeed determined to be an impairment to the public health. You have 20 days during that 20-day period, you know, they may come into compliance or they may file objections. There's an appeal process, an administrative appeal process for them as well to go in front of the city commission. Through that process, if they fail to come into compliance, then the city manager can then make the decision to abate that public nuisance. Usually, we have this in the cases of the excessive growth. We have the accumulation of materials, not necessarily have to be trash or, you know, trash or the junk trash and debris that we always see. You know, the code allows for accumulation of material to be defined a little bit broadly during a public case. So, it's any materials that could, you know, be accumulated to the extent that are potentially be dangerous to the welfare safety of the public. But finally, that's going to be the referral to the city manager. So, just to reiterate, right, you're limited to that accrual of the fines. Unfortunately, you do have that 20-day cap, but this is simply your limitation. If you wanted to, you know, allow for the continual accrual of that, that would need to be what amended. Your code would essentially need to be amended, and that would have to be removed. But, you know, I'll talk from my experience, because this is not my only board. And I also participate in other boards where I am city attorney, and I have different board councils. You know, this is happening. You're not the only board that's facing these type of problems and are asking these type of questions, right? Because we have new violations coming in, and we also see, you know, the ongoing, you know, the repeat violations or the ongoing violations for these properties where the city may not necessarily be inclined on a cost-benefit analysis to seek foreclosure or to seek a money judgment. So the violations remain. And unless you can meet that public nuisance standard, which sometimes you can, given the nature of the violation, there's not likely to be an abatement procedure, which is when the city comes in. So, just to get back, these are the tools available to the city. Staff can initiate that process for some of these tools by bringing them to the proper authority. And if staff were too inclined to do that, then we're more than happy. That's why we're here. We're more than happy to kind of guide them through that process, what that process looks like. For some of these tools, staff has, you know, availed themselves of these tools in prior history, and they've, you know, they've shared that with me. I haven't been part, specifically, of a money judgment or an injunction in civil court. I'm not so sure what our history is on that. But, essentially, these are kind of the tools that are reserved for the city outside of the code enforcement, the traditional procedure. So you have to kind of see yourself as, like, one of those branches out of the many branches that we have for kind of achieving compliance on code violations and municipal violations. I'm happy for questions, to answer questions. I can, you know, we'll get a finalized memorandum and put it in writing to share with the board just for you to have. But, once again, that concludes the presentation. Okay. Well, thank you. So, are, before Council writes up a memorandum, are there members of the board who have questions about what she said or areas that she would like clarified so that would benefit her in the preparation of her memorandum? Lisa, you had your hand up. Yes. Lisa Hunt. I wanted to ask you, can I ask her opinion or can I, okay. Can I ask you about the, how this affects the Airbnb problems that we've been having? I feel like that was one of the big ones that was brought forward to say, how can we better deal with this without it being a constant issue? Yes. So, I believe with the Airbnb violations, I do believe we were able to bring them as repeat violators because, essentially, they would come into compliance. They would stop, you know, the rental of the property for whatever time period. So, once again, the board is going to be limited to that fine amount. And it's kind of up to city staff and they do, you know, honestly, from what we've seen, we've seen these Airbnb owners come in on their third or fourth repeat violations within a six-month time period. I mean, honestly, just in my experience, you know, we're seeing more and more of this in other jurisdictions, but I've definitely seen quite a few of those instances in Dunedin as opposed to other cities. So, I'll say that. But, once again, you're going to be limited to the accrual of the fines. From my understanding, if any of those liens are outstanding, then, of course, then you can avail yourself of that. And most of these properties are going to be non-homestead, right? So, you're available to, all of these tools are now available to you. Any other questions for Council? Okay. So, the next step, then, to clarify is that you'll write up a memorandum? That is correct. We'll finalize a copy and send it out to the board members just so you can have a copy. And do you want to benefit from having a deadline so that your memorandum is attached to the minutes, or do you want to keep it open and do it as a separate document? I would prefer to do it as a separate document just because this meeting is audio and video recorded, so I'm not so worried about the public record. But I do want you guys to have a copy before our next board hearing. That's definitely the goal. Okay. Yeah. Great. Thank you. So, no other questions for Council? Any comments from the City staff? So, our next meeting date, then, will be November 4th. Is that correct? Okay. Well, thank you all. So, our meeting is officially adjourned at about 2.58 p.m. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.