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 members of the board, the person presenting the City's case, or the City Attorney may question any witnesses before the board. The respondent or his or her representative shall also be permitted to question any of the witnesses before the board and present brief opening and closing statements if so desired. The board will then openly deliberate, considering only the evidence presented, the law, and common knowledge, by motion duly made and seconded, discussed and approved by at least four members of the board, an order will be issued. The order will contain the findings of fact, conclusions of law, affirmative action to be taken. The order will be forwarded to the respondent by certified mail. I will now call the meeting to order. It is the Code Enforcement Board meeting. Today is September 2nd. It is 2.02 p.m. First item on the agenda, if there are any citizens present that would like the opportunity to address the board at this time that's not covered on the agenda. Seeing none, I'll move forward to the next item, which is consent agenda. And number one would be the approval of the draft minutes from the August 5th, 2025 meeting. If there are no additions, changes, or corrections, I'll entertain a motion to approve as submitted. Jeremy Reynolds, I so move. I need a second. Lisa Hunt, second. I've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? If not, signal by, I'm sorry. Well, say aye. Yeah. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously. I probably should have started with, we do have a quorum here. We saw that. Okay. Testimony oath of staff and public. Must this be the swearing in of all staff and public wishing to provide testimony? Please stand. Affidavits of compliance. Seeing none, I'll move on to old business. And I'll turn it over to Julie Phillips. Thank you, board. Julie Phillips, co-compliance inspector for the city of Dunedin. And this is in regards to case 24569 and case 24570 for the property located at 2602 Bayshore Boulevard. Cases 24569 and 24570 came before the board. Again, on 12-3-2024, the owner was present. An extension was requested for the exterior walls and overhang extensions due to recent hurricanes. The board granted the extension until April 13th, 2025. On April 16th, 2025, an affidavit of noncompliance was submitted. On May 6th, 2025, the cases came back before the board. The owner requested an additional 90 days. And the new compliance date was August 26th, or a fine to 250 per day. So I would like to show you some updated pictures, if you will. Go ahead. These were the cases that were violated. Sorry, I can't get this up here. First violation, IPMC Section 304.6, exterior walls. All exterior walls shall be free from holes, breaks, and loose and rotting materials, and maintained weatherproof and properly surface-coated where required to prevent deterioration. Second case number 24570, IPMC Section 3049, overhang extensions. All overhang extensions, including, but not limited to, canopies, marquees, signs, metal awnings, firescapes, sandpipes, exhaust ducts, shall be maintained in good repair and properly anchored so to be kept in sound condition. When required, all exposed surfaces of metal or wood shall be protected from the elements and decay or rust by periodic application of weather-coating materials, such as paint or similar surface treatment. There's a lot to read. This is a property when I first opened the case on July 3rd, 2024. You can see the breaks in the walls. Again, on July 3rd, 2024. This was September 30th, 2024. September 30th. This was in October when we had the two hurricanes, Helene and Milton. Again, the breaks in the wall, the exposed metal. This was November 21st, 2024. Again, November 21st, 2024. This is February 6th, 2025. February 17th, 2025. And this is the date after the compliance date, which was August 27th, 2025. Again, on August 27th. This was August 29th. And today, on September 2nd, we still have exposed metal, breaks in the wall. They are starting to do work, but they did not meet the compliance date. Cody is here to speak for the owner, Vijay. Leans are currently accruing on this property at $250 per day per violation for not meeting the compliance date. But I'll let Cody go ahead and speak. When you come up, please remember to speak into the microphone so that we can get the correct transcription. Yes, ma'am. I'm Cody Voigt. I'm here to represent Well of Car Properties, LLC. Also, his general contractor with Synergy Property Restoration. So, there was a delay in material being ordered for the project because of availability. The metal studs were on back order. We finally got the material. And since we acquired the material, we've had heavy, heavy rains the last couple weeks. And we haven't been able to make the progress we would like. But the subcontractor that's handling the framing assures me that they're moving on rather quickly. They're there today. They're actively working. I sent Julie some photos in advance of today's meeting. I think maybe there was an issue with the compliance date and potentially the next meeting, if I'm not mistaken, to be able to request an additional extension. Because, unfortunately, this project's been lingering because of all the issues out there. But we're close to getting it done. Obviously, we just need a little bit more time to do so. Board members, do you have any questions for Cody? I do. Daniel Valdok. So, I remember when this came up in November, there was a lot of issues with the permitting process, right? With getting the new AC units approved by the city and the building department, correct? That's correct. Because there's so many different units there, we've had even recent issues with the City of Dunedin permitting, putting stop work orders on. Because we have roof permits, AC permits, interior permits. We've got majority of those permits closed. Right now, we just have the roof and the facade that's open. We were able to close all the others. But because of some of the confusion, that's caused some of the delays as well. Do we know when was the permit actually issued for the roof? Because I know that was the main thing that was holding you guys back from being able to touch the facade, correct? Well, the original permit was issued in relation to the tornado that happened in 2022. Since Hurricane Helene came through, the roof system, which is an unrelated roof above the gym there, was then affected. So, the scope of work grew. It was a partial replacement, now it grew into a larger replacement. And because of the forces that were exerted on the building, there were structural components that had to be addressed and changed. Is it only above the gym or is it the entire retail roof? So, the adjacent building where the bingo hall is, that entire roof is getting replaced. Originally, it was from Madison Avenue Pizza over to the north that was getting replaced. Because of the latest hurricane, what you see in the photo there, which would be what was key financial and then the gym, that was the roof that was damaged from the hurricane. The facade previously was damaged from the tornado. So, it was a partial damage, but not to the roof, just to the facade, if that makes sense. Okay. So, equipment's not an issue now. It's just timing. Material is not the problem. We just received the material last week. Part of the issue was there were some minor changes or deviations that were necessary structurally because of availability of materials. And to get all that approved took some time. Well, I'll give you credit for what's been done over the last year because it looks nice. It's coming along. Yeah. We're trying. Yeah. Yeah. That's all the questions I have. Lisa Hunt. Hi. I had a quick question. So, I noticed, too, that all the other roof was being worked on, but I didn't see anything being done on what we're talking about today. Yeah. So, the roof system was torn off of the bingo hall. Like I said, we didn't have materials through last week. Right. But we weren't talking about the bingo hall. We were talking about the gym. Correct. Yeah. We have a huge staging area for materials for all of the roof systems. Right. That's in the parking lot. Yeah, I've seen it. But has anything been done above the gym? This is what we're talking about right now. The overhang extension at Ontario Whirl above the gym. Because these two issues are tied together and the way the building has to be repaired structurally, the facade has to be done first, which required the materials, and that's why it couldn't be started. Does that make sense? Thank you. No problem. So, Jeremy Reynolds, can you provide purchase orders, invoices, or delivery receipts showing when the materials were ordered? I provided Julie with photographs of the materials physically on site. She didn't request, you know, invoices, but I'm happy to provide them if you need me to. Can you give me a rough guess on when they were ordered? They were originally ordered approximately 90 days ago by a subcontractor, Contos Roofing, who's handling the facade repair. So, here's my question. If the notice of violation was issued a year ago, why was there such a delay on the ordering the materials? I mean, even if you didn't have the permitting, you knew what you needed to have done. You knew what materials it was going to take. At least you could get partial of it in. And it would benefit you, behoove you, from a business perspective, because those prices are increasing. Why did you wait so long to order material? The short answer is we didn't. We addressed this last time. The framing was actually completed at the time Hurricane Helene came through, and it actually tore it down. So, the materials that were previously ordered for the prior damage, the work was completed, the framing, but the hurricane literally ripped it all down. So, we had to start over, and as a result of the additional damage, different materials were necessary. So, that took you nine months to figure out? No, sir. Just so you're kind of aware of the context background here is the building that we're talking about where Madison Pizza is, that structure that's on the west side. There's two separate buildings. The west building, approximately 100,000 square feet, had about two feet of water in it from Hurricane Helene. I do live here. Yeah, yeah. It was more than two feet, but I get that. Inside, it was two feet, but we had to get all of those unit owners' items and remediation handled prior to even being able to approach this roof system. Yeah. Thank you. No further questions. Yeah. Any other questions for Cody? Sweet, sir. The question I have is, are you prepared? Because the ball keeps moving as per completion dates. Is there a new completion date now that you're going to present today? The facade, again, there's quite a few moving targets here. We've talked about roofs, which isn't part of our compliance issues whatsoever, to my knowledge. But as far as getting a physical building that's going to have, you know, ethos or stucco finish to it, that can be done likely within the next 30 days. If you're talking about painting and roof systems and the whole project, it's going to be, you know, still quite a while because they've got, you know, quite a bit to address still with damage to the building. And they're going to be painting the entire complex and things like that, which isn't, again, a code issue, but it's just something that's on the agenda to be done. Okay, because just from the naked eye watching the photograph timeline, you just visually don't see much activity. At least the last six months, not three months. Part of it, and again, I understand everyone's frustration, part of it is the insurance company's process, engineers, inspections, you know, those kinds of things have to take place. So, in other words, I can't throw the structure back together and then prejudice the insurance company's investigation. And we're still working through some of those issues. So, the insurance company has to inspect and provide, you know, documents and things of that nature for damage for hurricane and roofs and engineers and all that had to take place. So, it's unfortunately time consuming. Okay, because normally the insurance company sends out people to inspect a long time ago and then approves X things at X money for certain features. So, was that done in November or December? I'm just curious. Yeah, yeah. So, this was back in October following Hurricane Helene. So, an adjuster has to be assigned. Yes, they did come out. They took photographs. But then experts have to be retained by both parties. So, you have structural engineer for the insurance company, structural engineer for us, plans, submittals, approvals. We're still in the process of that. But, again, that's not an excuse for, like, the settlement of the claim being actually paid for the claim. The owners received no funds for that yet. And it's been almost a year. But that's not an excuse for getting this repaired. We're still moving forward. I'm just letting you know that's the reality of the matter. It's part of the reason some of these things are taking a long time. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I have one quick follow-up question. The insurance company that insures the property, is it also owned by Vijay Wavacar? The insurance company? Yes. No. Not directly or indirectly? Nope. Okay. That's not a self-insured item at all. Yeah, I understand. Vijay Wavacar owns a very large publicly traded insurance company. I was just wondering if the insurer was made potentially one of the subsidiaries of that. I'm unaware of that, if that's the case. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, board members. Julie, do you have a recommendation? I'm just recommending that the board accept the affidavits of noncompliance. The liens have currently been accruing for seven days. Thank you, Cody. Board members? Are we in discussion or do you want a motion, Madam Chair? Oh, the board can deliberate. I'm sorry. Good discussion. Yeah. I think they've had more than enough time. They're just dragging their feet. Yeah. This is Dan Bolduc. So, exterior walls. Again, this is two things brought before us. Exterior walls and then overhang extension, which by the pictures is both in this picture, right? Correct. Okay. So, we're not talking about the roof. That's okay. Because I do know that the roof was, there was some hold back over the last year on the roof, which isn't 100% at fault to them. But regarding this, there should be something. That's my recommendation. All right. I'm ready to make a motion unless anybody else has additional comments. No. Go ahead. I move in case 24-569, City of Dunedin v. Wavacar, Florida Properties, LLC for the property located at 2602 Bayshore Boulevard. To find the respondent did not correct the violation of Code Section 304.6, exterior walls on or before the compliance state of record, and to accept the affidavit of noncompliance based on the gravity of violation, any 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 of $5 to $250 per day as imposed from the order. Ordered compliance date until compliance is met. Respondent is ordered to contact co-compliance for a re-inspection of the property to verify compliance with this order. I so move. I second that. Walensky. Okay. I've got a motion and a second. Is there discussion? And just to clarify, this is for 24-569 and 24-570? Just the first one. Separate motions for each. Separate motions for each. Okay. Go ahead, Catherine. Mr. Gillette. Aye. Mr. Bolduck. Aye. Mr. Walensky. Aye. Ms. Hunt. Aye. Mr. Sweetser. Aye. Mr. Reynolds. Aye. Vice Chair Ballard. Aye. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Moving on to case number 24-570, City v. Walvicar, Florida Properties. Julie. Are we doing the second motion? Second motion. Second motion. Requesting the board to accept the affidavit of noncompliance. Board deliberate. Jeremy Reynolds. I move in case 24-570, City of Dunedin v. Walvicar, Florida Properties, LLC for the property located at 2602 Bayshore Boulevard. To find the respondent did not correct the violation of Code Section 304.9, Overhanging Extensions, owner before the compliance state of record, 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 determined to be a severe violation. A fine of $250 per day is imposed from the ordered compliance state 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. I so move. Lisa Hunt. Second. Okay. We've got a motion and a second. Mr. Gillette. Aye. Mr. Bolduck. Aye. Mr. Walensky. Aye. Ms. Hunt. Aye. Mr. Sweetser. Aye. Mr. Reynolds. Aye. Vice Chair Ballard. Aye. Okay. Thank you very much. On to new business. Case number 251707, City v. Dean and Suzanne Long. And I'll turn this over to Code Compliance Supervisor Julie Phillips. Thank you. Julie Phillips, Code Compliance Supervisor. This is Case 25-1707 for 2605 St. Joseph's Drive East. And this is a repeat violation. The respondent in this case is Dean and Suzanne Long. They reside at 5326 Santa Rosa Avenue, Sparks, Nevada, 89436. And this is a duplex, triplex, fourplex located in the MF-15 zoning district. There's one violation at this property. It's a repeat violation for DCO Section 103-14.8.1. Transient uses within certain zoning districts. Conditional use bed and breakfast intent. It is unlawful for any owner of any property within a multifamily zoning district of the City of Dunedin to operate a bed and breakfast without obtaining a conditional use permit from the City's Board of Adjustment and Appeal. The definition of a repeat violation. A repeat violation means a violation of a provision of a code by a person who has been previously found through a code enforcement board or any other quasi-judicial or judicial process to have violated or is to committed violating the same provision within five years prior to the violation, notwithstanding the violation, notwithstanding the violations occur at different locations. I posted the property in City Hall with an affidavit of posting, notice of repeat violation, and notice of hearing on August 15, 2025. A copy of the notices were also sent certified mail to the owner of record on 8-15, 2025, and I received the certified mail delivery confirmation on August 26, 2025 at 2.12 p.m. This is a copy of the delivery of the certified mail. On March 7, 2023, Case 23-898 was brought before the Dunning Code Enforcement Board and was found in violation of Code Section 103-14.8.1, transient uses within certain zoning districts, conditional use bed and breakfast intent. The Board found the respondent to be in violation after the compliance date of February 1, 2023. The violation was corrected before the board hearing on March 1, 2023, and the Code Board granted a declaration of violation. This is the advertisement on VRBO. It's Captain's Quarters, Captain of America Unit, Free Boat with Rental, and this was taken on Thursday, 8-14, 2025. I tried to book the property from October 4th to the 11th, and it took me to the payment page for seven nights. I also looked at their calendar, and you can see they have a couple more bookings in September and November that don't meet the 90-day requirement. This was the affidavit of posting, notice of repeat violation, and notice of hearing that was posted at their property on 8-15, and there's a closer shot of my notice. I tried to book the property again from December 6th to December 13th, and again, it took me to the payment page for seven nights on 8-15, 2025. And then when I came back to work on Monday, I checked the site and tried to book the property from March 2nd to the 14th, and it would not allow me to do so. It was corrected. I tried again on August 26th, 2025, from October 1st to the 18th, and it would not allow me to book. And again this morning from December 5th to December 12th. And at this time, I'll let the board deliberate. I have a question for staff. And the owner is here to speak. Okay. Okay. Let's go ahead and let the owner speak. My question would be better directed to the owner. Okay. Please come up and state your name and address for the record. Speak clearly, please, into the microphone for transcription. My name is Dean Long. Currently live at 265 Overstreet Court in Palm Harbor, 346A3. I am in violation of this. What happened, somebody tried to book from October 1st until January 2nd, and the one that they were trying to book in was one of the bottom floor units that still don't have the final inspection, so I can't book them for that. So I recommended them to another one, which I believe is the one that was up on the screen. And we were on vacation. I was trying to do it from my phone, and they said they couldn't book it. And I said, well, I looked at the thing, and it was set at 90 days, which October 1st to January 2nd was well within that range. And so I said, well, just give it a while. Maybe it's something with how you're doing it. And they couldn't do it, so then I went in and physically changed it, and then they actually booked for September. So, yes, I am in violation. I am guilty because I moved it down. I did go back, and I did cancel their reservation because it's not within the 90-day criteria. But I am at fault for doing that. Thank you. Board members? Yeah, do you operate a website called captainsquarters.life? Yes. And on that website, you advertise the Captain Morgan suite from 1309 weekly, correct? I haven't updated that site since we bought it. Okay, you might want to do that. No further questions. Board members, do you have any other questions for the owner? Okay, hearing none, thank you so much. Julie, do you have a recommendation? City's recommendation for Case 25-1707, Violations 1, Repeat Violation for DCO Section 103-14.4, Transient Uses Within Certain Zoning Districts, Conditional Use Bed and Breakfast Intent. I'm requesting a fine in the amount of $500 per day for the following dates, August 14th and August 15th of 2025, totaling $1,000. So I have a question for counsel about that. He's still advertising right now for weekly rates. Does that violate the ordinance? You could interpret it that way. I don't think you necessarily have to if he's not actively doing that. It sounds like from his testimony and from staff's testimony, the booking website that's actually used to book does not do that. So there is an intent requirement in the ordinance? I mean, there's an actuality intent, like, requirement. He has to actually be doing it. Yeah, I would say so. Okay. So, I mean, obviously, this final cap out at some point, and it's just a cost of doing business for him. Anything else we can do beyond that? I know at the next meeting, your regular attorney is going to present alternative code enforcement procedures that could be used for situations like this. But in your power as the code enforcement board, you're limited in what you can do. All right. So anything beyond us would just be like, you know, assuming it's a commercial property, not homestead exempted, then it's just reinforcement at that point. Thank you. That's all my questions. Of course. Okay. I believe we're ready for a motion. Jeremy Reynolds, I move in case 25-1707, City of Dunedin v. Dean and Suzanne Long. For the property located at 2685 St. Joseph's Drive East, to find the response that did not correct the violation of DCO Section 103.14-8.1, transit uses within certain zoning districts, conditional use bed and breakfast intent, on or before the date of compliance of record, and to accept the affidavit of noncompliance based on the gravity of violation of any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation. Any previous violations committed by the violator, this is determined to be a repeat severe violation of $500 per day, is imposed from the ordered compliance state until compliance is met. Respondents are ordered to contact code compliance for a re-inspection of the property. In this case, it would be the website to verify compliance with this order. I so move. Could I just interrupt the board? I just want to make sure that was read for a repeat violation. Yes. Thank you. And just for the record, I just want to confirm, because on the screen it says DOC 103-14.4, but written is 103-14.8.1. Correct. Thank you. I need a second. Lisa Hunt second. I've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? If not, I'll call for the vote. Just some clarity from staff. I believe staff's position is that it is in compliance, right, and it was in non-compliance for two days. And that's different from the motion that was made, just so we're all aware. I just wanted to make sure it was for a repeat violation. Mm-hmm. So... Yeah, I believe Mr. Reynolds is saying that to come into compliance, the website needs to not advertise the weekly rate. Correct. Thank you. Which is different from what staff has asked for. Yes, that was mine, too. Mm-hmm. Mr. Gillette? Aye. Mr. Boldock? Nay. Mr. Walensky? Aye. Ms. Hunt? Aye. Mr. Sweetser? Aye. Mr. Reynolds? Aye. Vice Chair Ballard? Nay. Motion carries. Okay, that concludes our business on the agenda or on other business code enforcement board member comments. Are there any? I just had one. I had a member of the public on social media. My wife saw something where they said that a gentleman purporting to be with Dunedin code enforcement had approached them about some issue or other. So I'd just like to provide the public with clarification. And, of course, I told them, I said, look, anybody that's going to work for City of Dunedin, A, they're going to have photo ID. B, they're going to be in uniform. C, I don't believe we have any male code enforcement officers. So we could just provide just a little bit of clarity for the public on that. I'd appreciate it. Yes, we do not have any male code enforcement officers. Thank you. Awesome. Thank you. Okay. City attorney comments? None. None. Staff comments? No, ma'am. Thank you. Nothing. Okay. Set next meeting date of October 7th, 2025. And let's see. City attorney to provide update from prior code enforcement board meeting. Laura is going to be taking care of that when she's here at the next meeting. Okay. There are no other business to come before the board to entertain a motion to adjourn at 2.32 p.m. So moved. Can I get a second? Second it. Walensky. All right. Aye, aye, aye. Aye, aye, aye. Thank you so much. Aye. Thank you so much.