Municipal Code Enforcement Board - Regular Meeting

Code Enforcement Board is going

We're to good. We're good.

You can go now.

Okay. Just

looking at our videographer back there. He's making some kind of motions, and I wanted to make sure we're good to go. Please rise for the pledge pledge of allegiance. Please proceed. Agendas of today's meeting are on the wall at the entrance chambers.

Please remember to turn off your cell phones. The Municipal Code Enforcement Board consists of seven members who are appointed by the city council. We serve voluntarily. It is this board's intention to promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Clearwater by providing this equitable, effective, and inexpensive method of enforcing certain codes within the city. The board consists I'll give you that again. The board considers new members new business items in two parts. First, the violation and then affirmative relief. Formal rules of evidence do not apply. Each side is limited to fifteen minutes. The board may grant additional time.

All proceedings will be conducted in a calm civil manner. Individuals who conduct themselves otherwise will be asked to leave. If necessary, they will be escorted from the chambers. Now I ask all who plan to speak, please rise and be sworn in by the clerk.

Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth throughout your entire testimony? Yes. Thank you.

Our first order of business is to review and approve the minutes of last month's meeting. May I have a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve. May have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next on the agenda are new business items.

Under our new business items, 3.1 has been withdrawn, 3.2 has been withdrawn, 3.3 has been withdrawn, 3.4 continued from March is going to continue to May 27. 3.5 continued from March 25 is going to be continued to May 27. 3.6 is going to

be continued to May 27.

Our first case step to listen to is 3.7, Case 706, fine respondents Juan Avella at 2104 Brigadoon Drive in violation of code for clean roof and issued an order with the compliance deadline and fine if the compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that matter? Inspector, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, board. Inspector Daniels, case number inspector of for the city of Clearwater, case number 74Dash26. This is for address 2104 Brigadoon Drive. It's one violation at this residence for, code section three dash one five zero two d dot three for roof maintenance. The notice of violation was sent out at, 04/18/2025 with a compliance date of 05/21/2025.

Certified mail was received 04/29/2025. They're going to pictures from the initial inspection leaves. The gutters are growing trees out of them. This was after the compliance date. This was the front.

And then I was out there this morning and just still there. And the back is just still growing weeds out of the gutters. Compliance can be met for roof maintenance by maintaining the roof in a clean, mildew free condition and kept free of trash, loose shingles, debris, and other elements, including grass, weeds, and tarps, as well as any anything that is not a permanent part of the building or a functional element of its mechanical or electrical system. So recommendations for the roof maintenance requesting compliance on or before 06/01/2026 or a final a $150 per day per violation if compliance is not met.

Thank you. Board, do you have any questions? Have you spoken with the owner? No, sir. Have you attempted to speak with the owner? Yes. Okay. No response? No response. All right. Any other questions from the board?

No.

May I have a first motion?

I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Second. All

in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation. What was the date there, please?

June 1.

June 1. Thank you. Respondent to correct the violations on or before June 1. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of a $150 per day per violation for each day. Each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

May I have a second? Second. Sorry? Second. All right. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Our next case, 3.8, has been withdrawn. Case 3.9, Case 76Dash26, fine respondents, Melise Enterprises Incorporated at 1004 South Martin Luther King Junior Avenue in violation of code for permits and issued an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Rees, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, Code Board. I'm inspector Cat Rees, inspector of the city of Clearwater. This is going to be for 1004 Martin Luther King Junior South Avenue. This is for case 76Dash26. And it's gonna be for one violation for permits required.

This violation is specifically for the permit for the building for the rafters framing roof interior remodel to include electric plumbing, drywall, subfloor, and removal of window. There are multiple notice of violations that have gone out. The initial one was sent May 2024, and the last one sent October 2025. Affidavit of posting was posted on sixthree of twenty four. This is going to be on South Martin Luther King, just south of Druid Road.

And this was the inspection pictures from the previous inspector who started the case of the work that was being done there. On a later date, PCCLB was contacted the inspector to advise that they were doing work in the interior. So it was a little bit after the initial inspection that they went back out and saw that more work was being done. So this is still on the outside, and this is in the inside. This is complete remodel.

And I have been in contact with the property owner for this property many times. So to elaborate on that, he wants to do a lot with the property and he keeps hiring contractors to move forward, then pulls. So as of today, we do have a permit that is requiring more additional information to have an issued permit. It cannot get issued until those revisions are met. And that is why I'm still bringing it here today because it's not an active permit.

And I don't want to, I want to be able to set a date of completion with inspections because that is the point of the permits, you know, after all. And here's just one of the letters from one of the previous contractors that voided out their contracts for this job as well as another. This is all the contact I've had with a lot of contractors or engineers, either one. And again, from another contractor where he's going a different direction. And that's basically what each conversation has been.

The plan, they advise me what it is, and then they say we're pulling or he's going another route. So at this point, the last time I spoke with an architect, he assured me there would be a permit in that he's now gone with someone new who has pulled this permit. So compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before 05/22/2026 and the completion of the permit six months from issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. Any questions?

It's been going on how long? About two years now?

Two years. Yes.

Board have

any Sorry. Is that typical? Is it We've just been really

There's been a lot, you know, COVID, well, COVID was well past at this point, but I mean, there was a break of inspectors in the department. So if I, it would only be a speculation of mine that as to why it's at, but I did take it on immediately from getting, you know, coming on board and I have been in contact with the property owner, but he just, and he understands like, yeah, I told him it's, we got to get something set and completed at this point. And I've worked with him as much as I possibly can.

He starts to get a permit and then pulls out or does.

Right. So the last, like, if I go back, let me go back here real quick. So the initial permit that was pulled in 2024 was voided out by the contractor and then again by another contractor. These are void letters and they have to send those so that way that takes a liability off the contractor as to why this was not completed.

Is there a stop work order on Yes, the

that it was. This was all based on a stop work order for the work being done without a permit.

But then you keep finding more work is being done even though there's a stop work order on it?

He has stopped now because I know he has understood that the building needs a whole lot more work than what he thought after speaking to professionals. I don't know if it's a money thing. Don't really want to speak for him. Yeah. You know, but we have high hopes here. He's got a permit in. Let's just, but he's technically in violation until there's an active permit and it is completed. Okay.

All right. Any other questions?

What's the compliance date you're seeking?

I'm sorry?

What's the compliance date you're seeking?

It's going to be six months from the date of issuance. So I'm giving you I'm requesting for May 22 to have an issue permit and six months for completion.

I have a question. Based on what you've seen, do you think that permit issuance, this may be a question for the building department if they're familiar it, if that compliance date is realistic in terms of what they've submitted. I'm not, I know this has been a long case, and I'm not advocating necessarily giving them more time, I'm just thinking in terms of where they are in the process and are they going to actually, can they actually get a permit issued by them?

Getting a permit issued? They just submitted the plans the other day. So it you know, they waited till the last minute to submit those plans. I I I really couldn't speak on it without reviewing those or having everyone review that. But it is on my discretion that even once the permit is active, if, you know, they're having issues getting the permit completed, they at least have the active permit. If I'm seeing that they're having inspections, they're passing or they're working to pass then, because that's really ultimately what we want is to make sure everything's up to code. That's the whole point of the permit.

Okay. You're asking for compliance date of?

To issue the permit May 22.

Gotcha.

I have not heard from the new contractor to to really give much more time than that.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

May I

have a first motion, please?

I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please?

I move to enter in an order requiring the respondents to correct the violations on or before 05/22/2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of a $150 per day per violation for each day. Each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

May I

have a second?

Alright. Thank you.

Yes.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? The motion carries. Thank you, inspector. Next case is 3.1 on our agenda. Case 77Dash26, fine respondents, Malise Enterprises Incorporated at 1004 South, South Martin Luther King Avenue in violation code for permits, and to issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is this not the same It

is the same address, so this will be a bit quicker because it's gonna be basically the same talk.

Well, I believe thank you.

Yes.

I believe I've already asked if there was anyone here to speak on this case. I know we had a late arrival. I just wanna make sure we didn't miss somebody. Okay. Inspector, you have the floor.

Okay. Inspector Kat Reyes, this is gonna be for case 77Dash26 at 1004 South Martin Luther King Junior Avenue. It's gonna be also for permits required. This is specifically to repaving and striping of the parking lot. This was also on the about the same date. It was on June 2024. The final notice being sent 03/05/2026. And I did have to post for this specific violation to property. There's the location of the property again. And that's for the posting.

And this is what the property looked like March 2023 as far as the pavement goes. And this is in 2025 and what it looks, you know, February 2025 on Google. This was the inspector's photos of the initial inspection where it was repaved and restriced. And I do this permit that was pulled will it also, I did quickly look to see if it did include this and it did. So hopefully if they get everything submitted, they can come into compliance for this as well.

All right.

So compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before 05/22/2026, and completion of permit six months from the issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day of the violation continues to exist.

Thank you. Board, do you have any questions?

Is that a commercial zoning? No

further questions. Any other questions? May I have a first motion, please?

I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation on or before 05/22/2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of

Excuse me. Did

did you say April or May?

May.

Sorry. Okay. Just missed your

Board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day. Each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next case, 3.1178Dash26, find respondents A. A. Torres Pavan at 1450 Franklin Street in violation of code for permits and issue an order with the compliance deadline and find if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Rees, you have the floor.

Okay. You'll be inspector Cat Rees with the city of Clearwater. This is gonna be for 1450 Franklin Street case number 786. It's one violation here for permits required, specifically permit required for the asphalt surfacing completed on the property. I for that. That should say 2022. And I totally forgot to fix that. First notice went out 01/22/2022. With my final notice being sent 11/21/2025. Certified mail was signed on my notice from 11/10/2025.

This is going to be just Northeast of Gulf Bay, right off of Franklin Street. So this is a complex residential apartments, and this is what the property looked like on Google February 2021. And this is it in February 2025. This was also the initial pictures of the initial inspector. She did have communication with him per the notes May of twenty twenty two.

Two and they advised that they were going to work on getting a survey to get come in compliance. Then when I took over the case, I did speak with somebody in December 2025. Our conversation was a lot different. He doesn't agree that something so miniscule needs to be in compliance, I've not heard from him again. So compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections.

Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before 05/22/2026, and completion of the permit six months from the issuance of the permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist.

I understand from what you're telling us that work was done without a permit, and at some point with a previous instructor. Was that Milda?

Yes, it was.

How is Milda?

Oh, I think she's doing pretty good. I hear from other people that, you know, that have spoken with her. She's enjoying retirement, I would imagine. Good for her. She earned it.

And then at some point, you picked up the case, and even though they indicated to her they would take care of it, now they're getting a different kind of a different idea from them that

Yes.

Okay. All right. Have you spoken with them recently?

No, not since December. I would imagine he has realized it's a bit more complicated than just getting the permit because it is issues with the right of way. You have to, it has to go through multiple departments. And a lot of people don't understand that, but there is importance to each one of those departments approval.

Sure. All right. Any questions from the board? All right. May I have the first motion, please?

I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Second.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before 05/22/2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect or settle such lien.

May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries.

Chair. Yes. Sorry. The next item 3.12 is the same address. It's a different case, but same address as 3.21, if we could hear those back to back.

All right. So we'll do three point one two first and then 3.21 to

not confuse you.

Alright. Thank you.

I don't know how they

got separated outside So of

we'll hear them sequentially. Yes.

Alright. Thank

you. Alright. Our next case, 79Dash26, fine respondents and please forgive me if I butcher somebody's name here. Alexander Gabrychik and Shezhana Gabrychik at 1623 Windsor in violation of code for permits and issued an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Nope? Alright. Inspector Reyes, you have the floor.

K. Inspector Kat Reyes with the city of Claywater. This is gonna be for 1623 Windsor Place, Case 79Dash26. It's gonna be for permits required is the violation, specifically the permit required for the screen patios that were installed through the property. First notice of violation was sent October 2023 and the final was sent 03/05/2026.

I posted to the property on 03/06/2026. And this is going to be just North of Souvenir Drive, pretty far south of Union. So here's a Google photo of the property February 2019, where you can see in this red box, it's just a balcony on the 2nd Level, and it's open at the bottom. And this is the Google photo August 2022. So I have had communication with this tenant.

He is advised that he has been having financial issues. I extended him multiple times. I said, I need some progress. Show me a survey and we can go to the next step. But there has been no progress towards coming to compliance.

And I advise him he could come here and ask the board for what realistic time he thinks he needs, but I'm surprised he's not here. So compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections, requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on and before 05/22/2026 and completion of the permit six months from issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist.

Thank you. Board, do you have any questions?

The person you talked to is the owner?

No, but he has in essence advised the owner. He's not in this state. He has my number as well. I've not heard back from any of them.

And the owner was sent notice.

I'm sorry?

The owner was sent notice?

The notice has to legally go to what is listed in property appraiser, so yes. And it has been posted to the property.

Okay. Any other questions?

No.

May I have a first motion, please?

I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

I'll second.

Mhmm. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before 05/22/2026. If the respondent does comply by that date, the board may offer a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day. Each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. For our secretary's request, we're going to jump down to agenda item three dot 21, case 88 Dash26, respondents Alexander Gabrychuk and Snezhana Kubrichick at 1623 Windsor Place in violation of code for permits and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. I don't believe we have anybody here to speak on this, so inspector Rees, you have the floor.

Okay. I'm inspector Cat Reeves, city of Clearwater. This is for 1623 Windsor Place case number 88Dash26. This is gonna be for one violation permits required specifically for the above ground pool installed in the property. The first notice of violation was sent May 2023 and the final was sent 08/11/2025. Certified mail was signed even though it was some time ago, I have been in contact with them. So I didn't post to the property since we didn't have mail signed by them in 2024. This is also for the same property. And this is an aerial view of the property. And this is from twenty twenty one of May.

And here, this is the property right here. And this is the pool that's installed that also doesn't look very good on the aerial shot from February 2023.

I'm sorry to interrupt you. Can we go back and look Of

at course.

I want to see, trying to see where that pool is. Know you probably can't zoom in on that.

Right. No, I cannot zoom, but it's this green area. The green.

That's a large above ground pool.

It is. It is a very large one. This the Google photo, I believe they caught them like, it caught caught a snapshot of them installing I saw

Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Yep. And, again, the communication has been the same as the previous violation. He's been afforded multiple extensions to, you know, for his financial burdens with no real progress. So compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before 05/22/2026 and completion of permit six months from issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist.

Thank you. Board have questions? No.

I just you see you haven't been actually in communication with the owner. You've made calls and left voicemails, you've never actually talked to them?

To the tenant I have you

know, But with the owner.

But I explained he wouldn't have to let his landlord know and that legal notice has been given and if he is choosing to leave his landlord out, that would be a civil matter between the two of them because we legally have to send to what is listed in property appraiser. Okay. And but I have attempted aside from that to have contacts with the landlord and I have not received a call back.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have the first motion, please?

I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. May I have a second motion, please?

Inspector Rees, we're going with May 22 again?

Yes, sir.

I moved in our order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before 05/22/2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of a $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, inspector. So we will go back up to agenda item 3.13, which is continued to May 27. 3.14 has been withdrawn. 3.15 is continued to 06/24/2026.

Next item for hearing would be case or item agenda item 3.16, which is case eighty three dash twenty six, fine respondents, DUN Investments Corp at 435 Mandalay Avenue in violation of code for permits, and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Inspector Cat Reese with the city of club order. This is gonna be for 435 Mandalay Avenue case 83Dash26. This is for one violation permits required specifically for permits of four wall signs on the property. First notice of violation was sent 06/04/2025 and the final was sent on March 2026. Posted to the property 03/05/2026.

And that's a picture of the posting. And this is right off of Mandalay Avenue, just south of Papaya. And it's the Italian Forlini's restaurant. I have been in contact with the property owner, with the restaurant owner. This sign we had discussed, he said he would take down and not permit, but the other three would need to get permitted.

So this, I know it's very difficult. It's like inside there, but it is easy for him to take that one down and come in compliance, but he still would need one to keep for this sign on the side, which is for his deliveries, as well as in the front of the business. And I have gone over, I believe I'm missing one other sign in my photo. I apologize for that. But he is in the, he understands what signs need to get permitted.

I've worked with him for a long time. I don't know what happened. He said he is going to get FAST signs to pull the permit prior to today. I haven't heard from him and there is no permit in the system as of today. So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit with final inspections. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before 05/22/2026 and completion of the permit six months from issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist and both a fine of $150 per day each day, the violation continues to exist.

Thank you. Or do we have any questions?

So this is only affecting the two outside signs?

It's there are a total of four. He could bring it down to three that need to get permitted, but if he takes that one down, but if he wants to keep it, it would have to get permitted as well.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? When did you last speak with the owner?

He came into the office and I sat down with him and someone from zoning as well as permitting just last week or two weeks ago. And then he called me last week to let me know that signs was going to get the permit in. And I haven't seen anything yet. I was rooting for him.

All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the Board?

And when would he have received his notice?

Oh, yes. It was posted to the property. Oh, when? 06/05/2026.

06/05/2020.

I'm sorry. Let go back to that. I'm going off the top. 03/05/2026. I posted to the property.

But he got notices of violation in June 2025 and September 2025?

Right. So this would be the first notice of violation and the first compliance date and then the second. So you it we give three violations before ever bringing it here, plus all the extensions that were given.

So the first one was, like, ten months ago?

Correct.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions? No. May I have the first motion, please?

I move to find a respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring respondent to correct violations on or before 05/22/2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day, each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or sell such lien.

May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Item, agenda item 3.17 is continued to July. Our next case, item, agenda item 3.18, case 85Dash26, fine respondents Paresh Parikh Shock and Druti Parikh Shock at 440 South Gulfview Boulevard in violation of code for permits and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Okay. Alright. I'm inspector Pat Reese with the city of Clearwater. This is gonna be for 440 South Gulfview Boulevard for Unit Number 308, case number 85Dash26. This is gonna be for one violation for permits required, specifically for a completed permit required for the interior remodel. There have been multiple notices of violation sent, total of four with several compliance dates. The initial compliance notice of violation was sent October 2020. The final being sent November 2025. Posted to the property that was a stop work order the day of on 10/19/2020. That is the picture of the posting of the stop work order.

This is going to be on South Gulf View. Just to give you, this is the 2 Tower Building at 440. The initial inspector was able to go into the property where the work was evident. As you can see, it does include electric. Know some of these pictures are a bit blurry, but I tried to keep them all in there.

Pictures of drywall. So the permit was pulled to come in compliance back in 2020. That permit has since expired. Okay. I have attempted to contact them. I've never had, I've never spoken to anybody at this property. They have passed some inspections, but they also have failed some. So, and it does not include the electric. So even if they pass all this, they're still not in compliance until the entire scope is met through the stop work order. So compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing said permit with final inspections.

Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before 05/22/2026 and completion of permit six months from issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of 150 per day each day if violation continues to exist.

Thank you. Board, do you have any questions?

I do. Yes. Is this the lobby of the tower?

No, this is Unit Number 308.

Oh, it's a unit. Okay, good. Thank you so much.

Okay. Any other questions

for me? Has the unit been sold since?

No, still the same owners.

Same owner? Okay.

If you haven't spoken with the owner, how did you get in to take pictures

of

the

initial? I was not the I wasn't here in 2020. So I took this case over from the previous inspector. Oh, I see. They went on property as well as air quality because it's condo asbestos, all of that was done, you know, they did their inspection. So the violation is there.

So it's been there. So it could be completely remodeled?

Oh, definitely. I'm certain it is at this point, especially with the permits that they've had. The work has been it's already done, but that we to have past inspections Sure.

On all the entire scope of work. Absolutely. Yeah.

So the initial was in 2020?

Yes.

And then there's quite a time period from then up to, what, 2025 when it was picked back up again. I would assume there was either it got dropped or there was COVID or there was work being done and that was permitted and then they stopped or some such thing. Can you enlighten us on any

of that? Based off of the notes, and Nilda was pretty good. This was her. She was in contact with a lot of contractors for them to come in compliance, which they did in 2020. And then she closed out the case because the permit was issued. And that's over time they've learned that's probably not the best idea because then we don't know if the, you know, the inspections were done. So it goes in a different status today. It goes in a permit issued status and then a reinspection would be set for six months from the issuance of the permit.

Am I correct in thinking that code compliance doesn't close them out now until the final inspection and then you close your case?

Yes. How I work that, a lot of people would tell me, hey, if I pass this and I'll close it out that day. But if even if they don't tell me, I set a reinspection in Acela so that way it aligns with the permit. So that way I'm not confused going forward.

Got you. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have a first motion, please?

I'm going to make a motion for address 440 South Golfview Boulevard, Unit 308. Is that correct?

Yes.

I move to find the respondent violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries.

May I

have a second motion, please?

I move to an order requiring the respondents to correct the violations on or before 05/22/2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? The motion carries. Just as a side note for looking at the administrative side of things, would assume, Madam Secretary, when this order is issued, that it will have that number 308 on it. It's not shown on our agenda item, and I just want

to I'll go back

and look and dot my i's Yeah. Before I sign something. Gotcha. Alright. Excellent. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Our next case is agenda item 3.19, Case 86Dash26, fine respondents Bond and Rhein San Hamel at 640 Bayway Boulevard, Unit 304 in violation of code for permits, and issue an order for the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, board. Reid Ito, phone inspector with the city of Clearwater. This is for a case 86Dash26. Property is located at 640 Bayway Boulevard, Unit 304. There's one violation or premise required.

Section four dash two zero three dot a dot one, specifically for permit required for interior remodel, including electrical and plumbing. I took this case over from a previous inspector, so the initial notice of violation was sent on 05/06/2022. And I sent out the notice of violations on July 21, August 15, 09/30/2025. The compliance dates was on May twenty fourth, September fifth, and 10/20/2025. And a certified mail was signed on the dates below.

Here's the the map of where the condo's located on Bayway Boulevard. This is Bay Shores. This is a picture of the exterior of the building of Bay Shores.

Here's a picture of the

remodel that was done on 05/10/2022 where the previous inspector took these pictures. So when I sent out the notice of violations initially last year, the previous the previous owner did reach out to me. But since then, I didn't hear anything from them till March of this year. So the previous owner and the current owner did reach out to me once they got the notice to appear. And this is what it looks like after the remodel.

Wow. And compliance can be met by obtaining a permit and completing the permit six months from issuance. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before 06/24/2026, and completion of permit six months from issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a final of a $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist.

Thank you. Board, do you have questions?

I do. Why so long for the permit? Just out of curiosity.

I'm not sure. I'm not I don't think I understand your question. Why are giving them two months?

Yeah. Why are you giving them two months?

Because they are working on it on they came to the in contact with the permit tech.

Okay.

But we have nothing submitted so far. But they've been in contact with us.

Okay. Thank you.

And when you say they, was that the current owner or the owner?

And the previous owner.

Okay.

So the previous owner is helping out the current owner to get everything permitted. Okay.

And this is this is multifamily. Correct?

This is a that was a condo.

Condo? Yeah. Okay.

Is it a 55 plus, or is it just a regular?

Yeah. So it's a oh, go ahead. Go ahead. It sounds like the previous owner did the remodel. That's okay.

So she's helping out the current owner to everything Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. You say they've met with the building department?

They were just making telephone calls and emails with us.

So they had a permit at some point for some of the work.

Yeah, but everything They didn't

have it for all of it.

Yeah. There was nothing approved.

And nothing, so nothing got passed or anything like that? No. They just kept going and

Okay. So they're going to have to open walls and everything?

Say that again. Are they

going to have to open walls and probably

Yeah. I mean, there are a number of ways to do that if they get an engineer to sign off on it, but basically everything's got to meet code and you have to prove that up. Am I speaking out of turn? Yeah. They'll have to get into compliance. All right. Any other questions? No. All right. May I have the first motion, please?

I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before June twenty fourth, twenty twenty sixth. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day, each violation continues to exist. If fines or fees I'm sorry. I'll give you that again. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second. Second.

Thank you. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Thank you, inspector Ito. Our next case on our agenda is 3.2. It's case 87Dash26, fine respondents Gratus Filius Enterprises LLC at 1700 Gulf Of Bay Boulevard in violation of code for unsafe building, and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Yes. K.

Matt Blackshear with Bowen.

Please step up to the mic, if you will, and give us your name and address and your involvement in the property.

I'm Matt Blackshear with Shutz and Bowen here on behalf of the fee owner of property, Gratus Filius Enterprises. Gratus Filius is the fee owner of the property. That's the owner of the land. The owner of the land ground leased the property to a tenant, seven two seven, wake up seven two seven, who was gonna build a Caribou Coffee on on the site. Got you.

And I don't wanna interrupt you unnecessarily. What we'd like to do is get your information on the record and then find out the other gentleman here and what his involvement is Yes, sir. And then ask a question. I'm James Wardell. I'm here on behalf

of Wake Up seven twenty seven, which is the tenant.

Oh, I see.

I'm sorry. Your last name again?

Wardell, w a r d

e l l. Thank you.

Okay. So you're both here you're you're representing the owner of the

Land. The

case of the land property, and you're here representing the the tenant for Yes, this Yes. Okay. So our typical, process here is that, we'd like to ask you if you admit or deny the violation so that we can get that on record, and then we'll go from there. So do you admit or deny the violation?

I deny the violation as it stands today.

Okay. Very good. Do you have anything to add to that?

I think the process is going forward. It it was a violation, but it was because of reasons beyond both of our control

Gotcha. And how we're working with

the city to fix it all. So

Gotcha. So I'll ask you gentlemen to have a seat. We'll hear from the code compliance officer, and then we'll, bring you back up and, see what you have to say.

Inspector? Board. Inspector Larson, City of Clearwater. This is regarding 1700 Gulf Tobago Boulevard. It's a Caribou Coffee location. Case number 87Dash26. We have one violation. Property maintenance requirements, a minimum bill a excuse me. Minimum building fire code requirements. All buildings shall be maintained in accordance with the Florida Building Code, the Florida Fire Prevention Code, and the International Property Maintenance Code.

Section three dash one five zero three, nuisances. The exist mhmm. The existence of any of the following specific conditions or conduct is hereby declared to constitute public nuisance. Buildings which are abandoned, boarded up for a period of six months, partially destroyed for any period of time, or left for a period of three months in a state of partial construction. This is where we're at here.

Provided that any unfinished building or structure which has been under construction six months or more shall be deemed and presumed to have been left for an unreasonably long period of time in the sense of this sub section. Notice of violation here was 01/30/2026. Compliance date, twenty seven days after receipt of the notice. Certified mail was returned signed on 02/23/2026. Here's the the location.

You can see it's West Of Keene Road, North Of 60, right on Gulf Dupay there on the corner. Here's on the thirtieth when I when we notified them of the unsafe. At this point, it was an abandoned construction site. You can see debris, the silt fence has fallen down. It's been sitting there a while. Piles of dirt. Site more site. Again, this is all on the January 30. Here's an open trench. Okay.

Now here we are on March 30. Up close picture. There has been some site work at this point. We'll get into why or how. Again, site work. Now this is April 14. There's a difference in the appearance of the structure at this point. It's looks like it's being demoed. There's people working on it. Same thing.

Windows, debris. You can see the structure is open in the background there. Pipe's exposed. Same thing. Again, this is now this is the twenty first. Excuse me. Starting here is the twenty first, which is yesterday. So this is what it looks like right now, basically. Alright. This was an abandoned construction site with permits that had expired last year in 07/22/2025.

That was for the build of the structure. 08/2125 site work, both expired permits. There is an active permit now dated 02/1026 for the new boiler repairs and site work. A plans amendment 04/17, so five days ago, for additional repairs. It looks like they got into it, and it was more than they expected that had to be fixed.

Owner states that the contractor has been changed, so that's where we're at. Basically, for compliance to be met, to comply, construction needs to be completed to meet minimum code requirements with certificate of occupancy. If not completed, the remaining structure needs to be demolished. Recommendation in this case, if the violation continues to exist by October 22 at six months, impose a fine of $250 per day. The construction is not completed and a certificate of occupancy is not obtained by this date.

The city asked the board to authorize entrance onto the property to correct the violations. The city will correct the violations by any means necessary with all reasonable cost to be applied as leads against the property. Standard. Basically, what we're looking for is a timeline. You can see they now have permits. You know, they seem to be finding more work than what was there what they what was expected probably.

You

know? But, actually, the the previous contract with the work they did, no inspections on a lot

of it.

A lot of

the work, it's not done to the plan set, so you see their situation.

Okay. Thank you. I have a question for you, sir. Help me understand if they I think, originally, they got permits, work was performed, work was stopped, but now they have a new permit in place as well as an amendment they filed.

And a new contractor. Why

help me understand why why this is before the board today if they if they granted they had this this period of time there, which I understand, but if they've got new permits and have an amendment filed to, you know, provide the data for whatever changes they're making, then why is why is this before the board today?

Excellent question, sir. The the city is just looking for some type of timeline. We wanna make sure that it doesn't end up abandoned situation again. We want to keep it moving and have a nice building there when it's done.

Okay. I got you. All right. So you're basically in the business since it sat so long, you're looking for a bit of motivation to make sure this thing moves along?

Yes, sir.

Any other questions from the board for the inspector?

Well, you see activity there. Do think that that's new activity or the

Oh, there's quite a

bit of new activity, absolutely.

So where's the three months? What are we going for here? Not, it doesn't look it's abandonment. It's not completely At this point,

it's not

because the permits have typically, when a building sits for a while, when the code board comes in, things start to happen, happen, and that's what we're looking for. We wanna just make sure that this project continues.

What motion do we do that makes sense at this point? Can we

Not yet until we hear from the hear from wanna hear from the the land person and the I'm sorry, I'm not here, I I hope I'm not jumping on your want to hear from the owner and the tenant to kind of get their perspective of what's occurred and where they are with things too, so that we can Okay. Better evaluate. Okay. Any other questions for the inspector at this point?

I guess I think what he was saying is usually when we get these cases, it's three months of a violation, and they've been given three violations and they're not doing anything about it. Well, now, yes, there was a period of time where nothing was being done, but they are doing stuff. There is an active permit. So I understand where you're coming from, but I think that's where the confusion lies is if they have it. I understand what

you're saying. Yes, ma'am.

Yeah. Okay. No problem. Thanks.

Thank you. Gentlemen? What would you like to tell us about all of this?

I can provide some background information. I think you've all had very rational and reasonable questions, and I think that the position of the inspector is pretty reasonable in light of what's all going on. But just to provide some background color to it, this isn't a situation where somebody is trying to do something and abandon a project and walk away. When this ground lease was signed, there was a requirement of the tenant who was gonna raise the existing building on the site, and they did. But there was a requirement that the tenant also procure a payment and performance bond from its contractor because we don't wanna be in a situation where there was a half constructed building and nothing.

You know, the tenant either the tenant defaulted or the contractor defaulted or whatever didn't go forward. We didn't want a bad situation, so we required the bond. The tenant got the bond. And then things went sideways with the contractor's work. As I understand it, again, I represent the landlord, not the tenant. But things went sideways with the landlord or with the contractor. And then it took some time. I don't know if you've had to make a claim on a construction bond, it takes some time to go through all that process. And then, of course, Dennis finding a new contractor to come in and step into their shoes, which I understand has happened here. And then I think everyone's probably experienced at some point if you've ever terminated a contractor and got another contractor, and there's a problem with the prior contractor's work.

So you've to go through and you've got to do this additional work. And I understand that these pictures are from the stucco and the problem that with the installation of the stucco and that led to some other problems. There are active permits here. There was I received emails as recently or this morning about a modification to the description of the work in the permit just to make sure it's all picked up on to make sure inspections are done. But this isn't a project that someone is just trying to abandon, walk away with, create a nuisance, anything of that nature.

What I would actually request, and I think that the proposal is fair, but what I would request of the board is that we just continue this to a couple months from now to let the board revisit it. The tenant is already under a fine per day, so to speak, because the tenant already has to pay to my client rent what it's doing, and it's not generating any money from this property. And so the tenant is under every urgency right now to get this project completed and open. So I don't think that, you know, the purpose of a fine is, of course, to ensure and persuade compliance. I don't think that that's really necessary necessary here.

So with some of that background information, I I hope the board will consider just continuing this for a couple months, and I'm confident that if it comes back or it just is canceled, that it won't even be necessary.

We're asking for six months.

Right. And I think that that's fair, but I just meant to continue the whole concept this entire hearing because as you see, the contract already started and then it turned out they had to pull the side of the building off.

Right.

And we just don't know what's going to come up. But it and I understand the concern about the timeline on it. But again, please consider the the the the situation that the tenant is in, which is that it's it's paying a substantial rent to my client, the landlord of the property, every month going forward while this is sitting here, while it's not generating any revenue. So it's it's already not in a favorable position, and it has, you know, every motivation in the world to get this done as soon as possible. Right.

Regarding from what I'm hearing from you, you're asking us not to oppose immediate fines, and that's generally not our operating basis. I believe the inspector is asking, you know, for, if work is not completed in six months, at that point instituting fines, if I read your request properly, so understand that we're not in the business of assessing fines immediately today, we're in the business of saying what's going on here, what's it going to take to complete, what's fair, etcetera, etcetera, and what's the inspector asking for. My question, are you involved in the construction end of things? Are you conversant with that, or should I be talking to the other gentleman?

He's probably more familiar with the actual construction aspect of it.

The reason I'm asking this is that please step up, sir, if you would, is that our inspector is asking for is is saying that he's providing a six month completion time, and my question to either one of you gentlemen is is that a real timeline to get the project completed?

We we think that's a a real time line. In fact, we're we're hoping to be done sooner than that. As everyone said, we've been paying rent on this. And my client was really kind of a victim of construction worker, and we fraud, and we had him on two other buildings that they did in Pinellas County too. So we had to correct all of those. So we went as fast as we could, taking the bond. As soon as we resolved the bond matter, there is litigation with the former contractor, but that's not part of this. We want to get this done as fast as possible. It's been a huge expense for my client, and nobody wants to get it done sooner. We do have the two contract contractors and the subcontractors.

We're working on the case in case you have specific updates, but a very aggressive timeline is maybe sixty days more realistic because we know stuff always comes up. We don't think we'll have any problem in six completing everything in six months.

So. Does the board have any questions to these gentlemen?

Is there a coffee shop that's going in?

Caribou Coffee. Yes. Best coffee in the world.

Thank you. Any other questions to these gentlemen? I see mister Garriott's come forward. Did did you have something to offer, sir?

Yeah. Hello, board. Kevin Garriott, billing official. This is an unusual case. As you said, and and as you noted, we've got a permit.

But I also want to remind you that we had a permit for about two years, and it sat like that. Yeah. So we're at no further than we were two years ago when they started building it and left it looking like this. So the motivation that somebody mentioned here is exactly what we're looking for. We want you to push them to get that CO, and if they don't get the CO, they can have some fines on the property and and take care of it that way.

All the rent, I'm sure, has still been due all these years while it's been sitting like this. Nothing has changed. These gentlemen talk about, you know, where they are now, same place where we were two years ago.

Excellent. Thank you.

Thank you for that information. I appreciate it.

The only thing I would add to that is that there were construction defects in what we were looking at two years ago, and that those are being resolved now. And also keep in mind that the fines that are going to be assessed, if it's not brought in compliance or gotten the CEO within that six months period, they go against the landlord. The landlord's fee simple interest is standing back with his hands in here saying, this is my tenant doing this. So although if it sounds like they can get it done in six months, that would be great. If the board would consider maybe a little bit extra time just for the landlord's protection,

we'd certainly appreciate that. See.

Well, I would like to ask the inspector a question in that regard. Is it your typical operating basis that if you see a project progressing and moving toward completion, that you're typically in in communication with the owner and or whoever else is involved to check status before you bring it back before the board?

Absolutely, sir. We've they've been in great communication with me since I've been involved, and like you said, if if we see improvement, passing inspections, that sort of thing, you know, we don't usually push the issue. You know, we give them a little bit of leeway.

Do you see progress, you're willing to work with them? Is that

Yes, a fair We see progress, we're willing to work

with them.

Does that help answer your concerns and questions?

Yes, it does, as long as we're in good communication as well.

Good. All right. Any other questions from the board? No. All right.

I wanna know what the violation is, the current violation that we're doing a motion on.

That would be a question for the co compliance officer, inspector.

Well, at this point, sir, it's still an unfinished site, But they do have permits, so they are moving forward. As far as the violation, you know, the nuisance, it's been a nuisance, and we want it to be taken care of.

Can you can you bring back up the the code that we're basing this on?

It at the top or the bottom? Yeah. It's on the top. Yes, sir.

Okay. So yeah. It's kinda small, isn't it? Yeah. I'm looking at, under the second section there, nuisances buildings, which are abandoned and boarded up for a period of six months, partially destroyed for any period of time, or left for a period of three months in the state of partial construction, etcetera, etcetera. That's what you're you're basing your request on.

Yes, sir.

And the timeline on this is, I believe, I heard from mister Garriott, was it's been going on a couple of years or some such thing, and It's it's been going on for a while. Okay,

they're comfortable with six months. I think that's reasonable for everyone and

definitely. If I can just add the only thing this is the reason why I asked the board to continue the whole matter for six months or so because this, I mean, there's a presumption that a site's been, if it's under construction, it's been longer than six months that it's abandoned. That's just a presumption, but we've, I think we've overcome that presumption in saying by the issuance of the new permits and the activities and saying that that's not the case here. This isn't an abandoned site. They are doing work on the site, and they're moving forward.

So I don't think we're in technical violation of this at this point. That's why I denied the allegations at the outset, and that's why I ask that we just continue the hearing along. It would seem more prudent for six months from the issuance of the permit for us to be back here, but I'll leave that for the board. Okay. Mr. Chairman?

Yes.

I think what he's saying is prudent. I think we should probably continue this for three months here. And then, you know, if they're not moving along, we have ample time to act to, for the six months from now is coming in effect. I think we just

delayed this for three months and get an update. Understood. From another perspective, if the compliance officer is asking for six months and they think they can finish it in three, and no fines occur until before the inspector brings it back before us six months from now, then I understand the the compliance officers and the building department's desire to I know that the owner and tenant are motivated now by the fact that this thing has gone on long enough, and they want to see it complete, and they're here to talk with us. I think that, number one, they're motivated by having to pay rent. And I certainly understand the city inspectors point about wanting them to be motivated.

I think they are motivated, but again, I'll point out that no finer action occurs. Number one, before the six months and number two, before the inspector brings it back before us. And so I, from what the inspector is offering, I don't, I see no harm, no foul by, by going with a standard motion unless there's something that I'm missing.

But even if we just look at a three month extension with no fines, we're not violating what you're saying either. It's just that we're reviewing at that time.

Well, that puts it at nine months out. That way, if they're asking for six months now, and we wait three months to hear it again No,

it's just three months from today.

Yeah. I'm sorry? If we ask

the question again about, I think you may have told us, but let me ask again. During those two years, what was happening that was keeping you from going forward?

So the contractor basically was defrauding my client. They paid the contract in full, and

they kept saying it was almost done, done, almost done.

They finally had to get kicked off the project. Then there was a bond, and the bond had to come and inspect to see the violations. So we weren't allowed to change anything until they did the inspection to pay for kind of the fraud that my client suffered. So it it just nobody wanted it to take this long. My client was very frustrated in trying to get the contractor to go the whole time. So it it just took that long for the process to unwind. Like we said, we've paying rent on this the whole entire time. And, you know, it's a prime piece of real estate on a busy corner. So it's very it's cost him a fortune and we are suing to try to get that back. But I mean, who knows?

We're just trying to get the building done so we can generate some income. So this was not any, like, delay. This has been really they're they're essentially victims of

of Okay. Horrible experience What's your best estimate of of completion of construction?

I mean, a very if everything went perfectly fine, sixty days. If, you know, we run into some other things, we think that that ninety to a hundred and twenty be kind of the outsides of how long it will take.

So if we wait three months from today and get an update, we'd have a pretty good update?

Yes, we'd have a really good update and we might even be close to completion at that point. I think that's a very fair suggestion. And after that, we wouldn't, you could just set another three months so you wouldn't be out. It wouldn't turn into nine months. Could just be six months at that time.

All right. I'm going to make a motion that we just continue this for three months until and hear it again for an update. Second.

Is there any other before we rule on that, I Just stick on. You know, we've got a couple of different points of view here, and I want to make sure we sort this out in the best interest of all concern. Not to caution anything you're doing, I just I want to make we're all done

with this.

Say again?

We do have a motion on the floor.

Well, you have discussion on the Yeah.

Can I ask a question? If we were to do the six month fine, but let's say this hope this never happens, but in five and a half months comes along and they're like, we're still waiting for this license to come in or this inspection or whatever, and it's going to take another month. Can they come to you or can they come to us and say we need an extension on this?

Absolutely. Okay.

And remember, you have to accept an affidavit of noncompliance in order for the fine to run. So number one, the city has to present it to you.

Okay. Again. Right.

So if things are working out, then the city is not going to bring an affidavit of not coming.

Okay, good. Okay.

Mr. Chair, may I add a Please. I would just say that I don't necessarily have an objection to the continuance. I think if we did do it that way, the city would come back in three months and ask for the exact same deadline date that we're asking for today. The only difference is adding a hearing in between those two time frames.

I think from their perspective, there's a difference also in the determination that a violation actually occurred, which I hear conversation on that. And I would just say our perspective on that from the city is that it has, notwithstanding the activity that's occurred, the litigation, the frustrating circumstances, The code does specify that if it's left for a period of three months in a state of partial construction, I don't think we've heard any real debate about that fact that it has been in a state of partial construction for a very long period of time. So that's our theory of what the violation is. Defer to the determination of the board what's best and whether or not you want to hear it one more time before the deadline. If we come back, we would ask for the same deadline in October.

And then as others have stated, if there was significant progress occurring in October, the building department would have discretion to bring that affidavit back at a later time or not. The landlord and the tenant, the participants here would have another opportunity to come on that day, and we would again be arguing the point of whether or not it has been left in a state of partial construction at that time. So, there would be another opportunity to, debate the issue of, of the status of the construction and those sorts of things. So the

only difference between those two, if the city came back with the same date of October, if we did, did an extension that the the owner is asking for now, the only real difference between and they came back with the same date. The only real difference between the two would be, that we're not making a declaration of violation today.

I I mean, I don't wanna necessarily speak for them, but I assume the reason that they're asking for that is because that does give a possibility to allow them to resolve the situation without a formal finding of a of a violation. So I I understand that, why they would ask for that. Like I said, you've heard from our team, we're just trying to get significant progress. We understand that this has been a complicated situation, but our code does the permit issues, the contractor issues are their own separate thing in terms of whether or not something is a nuisance. And from our perspective, the fact that it's lingered in a state of partial construction well beyond the timeframe that the code requires means that it is a nuisance in our determination.

And remember, if you find a violation, they're subject to the higher fine for repeat violation, so once you find one violation, they would come back as a repeat violation, you're looking at up to $500 per day.

Understand.

If I could, the only other thing I wanted to add is that I still don't think under this statute that there is a current violation. I think there is an insinuation or presumption in this statute that the building is still partially constructed and that there's no nothing going on, and we know that that's not the case with this particular

site. Understood.

Thank you.

All right. I'm just gonna add. I I hear two attorneys here in good faith giving us some good information representing the the landlord and also the owner of the property, and I think we should continue here again in three months.

I have no objection. Does anybody else have anything else to

offer

No, I have before objections

to that.

All right. Motion is on the floor. Motion is on floor. Motion the floor. Second. Sorry, yeah. We have a call. I'm sorry. We can call a Councilor? Moment, No, the motion and second is on the

floor to continue this for three months.

So we need a date.

Well, let's get the vote and then we'll get the we'll we'll tell you when it'll be on.

Alright. I have a second. Second. Alright. All in favor? Aye. All opposed?

The motion carries.

So when's our next meeting in three months?

Twenty ninth.

So it'll be back before the board on July 29.

You very much. Thank

you gentlemen for coming and bringing us all of the data and helping us understand. Please give us good information. I

Thank

we Moving on. We've already heard that was case or agenda item three dot 20. We've already heard three point two one, three point two two has been withdrawn. And that completes, new business items. That is correct.

Alright. Moving on to old business. This is case 48Dash24, consider request by petitioners of RE Capital Management LLC at 1915 Macomber Avenue to reduce the fine regarding exterior surfaces and abandoned building, and if approved, issue an order that specifies a fine that includes administrative administration costs and establishes a date payable where the lien will revert to its original amount. Sir, you're here to speak on this case?

Yes, am. My name is John Liu. I'm a state certified building contractor, not the one that got fired from Caravan Crossing.

By the way,

is on sale at Costco. The pods are on sale just in case need

to you. Off, I think. For that clarification.

And I am not the owner. Am an authorized person to appear, and Madam Secretary Nicole Sprague does have a notarized authorization on file.

Okay. Very good. I like these hearings for somebody's house. Okay. If

We have the authorization and board. The, administrative costs are $1,135.20.

$11.35 20?

Yes, sir.

And, did you say that the city has, is in agreement with this? Or

I don't think you

said that. I'm ask you this. What is the city's position on this?

We we, we just like to get our our admin costs, investigative costs back from the case, but beyond that, we don't have any objection.

And what is that cost? Do we know? That's the $11.35

Yes.

Oh, okay.

Do you have any questions, from the Board on this or any?

Sorry, what, is this the property that had the window that needed to be replaced, that's boarded at? What is this?

This is a, fence, exterior surfaces, abandoned building.

And that's all been fixed now?

Yeah. Oh, okay. I'll point out that looking at the affidavit, it was owned. The owner died. His father lived out of state.

Oh, that's

this one.

The property was purchased by a new owner, am I correct in this? And I

have something. There is undiagnosed You do? I have undiagnosed OCD, and, there is an incorrect statement in the application. The date of death states, 11/21/2018. If you look at the death certificate, the owner was found dead, sadly, at the age of 40, on 01/18/2021. So it's a little bit dyslexia and something else going on there that

I see. I do not approve of. So let's go ahead and get that corrected if that's okay.

Understood. Sorry about that.

Thank you. I don't think that's gonna play a major part in No.

Anything we do, but appreciate the detail.

The eye for detail. Thank you

very much. Just the c d I

k now.

No problem.

And I opened the cases after that happened, and, the father did try to maintain the home,

but just couldn't do it. He moded a

couple of times, and we had to kind of take over, and then the lien started. Now they've stepped in, they've corrected the violations and All supported lien

right. Any questions from the Board? What page would this one be on? Say again?

What page would this one be on?

I don't have that book so far. Oh, it's at five.

The top one.

Reduce Lean. Page five.

How many days are we going?

It's usually thirty, right?

It's thirty. What's the number of days

on this?

Typically, it's thirty.

Thirty? Thirty. Sorry.

This is the current lien amount. What are we trying to reduce it to?

We're reducing it to the city's hard costs. The Administrative costs, which are I mean, we're we're entertaining the concept.

Oh, I see. It wasn't on mine.

Right. No. That's it wasn't on mine either. They had to they called it out. Okay. Okay? So that represents the city's hard cost and, administrative cost in there. Chair. Okay. If I

could just, and I apologize because we do have new board members. So you have a policy that doesn't allow you to reduce any kind of fine below the administrative costs so that at least the city, on both sides, the enforcement and administration can be made whole. So that is your policy. So normally what we do in this situation is we'll read off like I did the amount, and that is your, the lowest you can go.

I see. Okay.

Thank you for that.

And I just want to clarify. So you're working for the new owner who purchased the property and then made all the repairs?

Yes. Because I've OCD. Some of the repairs were done actually before they became technically the owner. Defense repair was done way, way back.

Okay.

Waiting on the probate, the probate just concluded, and then that's when the rest of the repairs were done. But yes, that is correct.

Okay. Thank you.

And then of course, the hard cost. Yeah. We don't want the city losing money that way. So, yeah, definitely bring a check to Nicole, like, the next forty eight hours.

Okay. Thank you.

Right to our house.

That's convenient.

I'm ready for a motion. Okay. So everything's up

to code now. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah.

I move to enter an order reducing the amount of the lien to administrative costs of $1,135.20 payable within thirty days where the lien will revert to its original amount.

May have a second? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

All right. We're moving on to other board actions, and I'm assuming Madam Secretary, we're allowed to accept all of these affidavits of compliance with this one motion? It. Alright. Regarding all of the the listed affidavits of compliance, 5.1.1 through 5.1.9. May I have a motion, please?

I move to accept the affidavits of compliance as opposed.

Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next order of business is item 5.2, continued from March 25. Case 188Dash25, accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondents, Angel Investment Group of Tampa Incorporated at 1039 West Avenue for permits.

We have no compliance for that property. I could bring up the picture as it stands today if you'd like. It was the shed slash, I believe, what they may have made it into a living space on the property that has not been permitted. What was that address again?

1039 West Ave.

So that was as of today, this morning, this check here, that has still not been permitted. I've had no communication from this property owner.

Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? Any questions from the Board? I have a motion.

I move to accept this affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed. The city is authorized to foreclose, collect or settle such lien.

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Item 5.3, case one hundred ninety one dash twenty five, accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondents Richard and Nicole Pendleton at 3268 San Mateo Street for permits. Inspector Rees.

Good afternoon, Inspector Kat Rees. This is for 3002 And 68 San Mateo case one hundred ninety one dash twenty five. Again, this property has not come in compliance. I believe when we brought it before the board, I did give ample time for them to get the flexibility that they probably would have needed to keep the pavers the way they were. He waited until today to contact me, and is traveling at this time. So I did advise him that I would be moving forward with the noncompliance.

Okay. Board have any questions?

No.

May I have a motion, please? I move

to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that poses fines and states if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed. The city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second.

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. 5.4 on our agenda, except case, three dash 26, accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondents Kathy Borrow at 1910 Union Street for exterior surfaces, roof maintenance, door and window openings, exterior storage, and public health safety or welfare nuisance, which is a pool. Let's see. You weren't Inspector Kasman, but we will gladly speak with you, sir.

I shrunk.

Inspector Kasman's on vacation, but I went by the property this morning, and all the violations still exist. There's a fire at the property. There's stuff showing around the property. Doors and windows are broken. Holes in the roof from the fire and the unsafe pool and everything else that's on the property.

So no change. Okay. Thank you, sir. Any questions from the Board?

Do you know if Inspector Kasman has been in touch with the owner, or does he have any update?

I don't think so.

Okay.

But I do know that the property is foreclosed and scheduled for option in June, so.

Okay, thank you.

All

Any other questions? We have a motion, please.

I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issue an order that imposes fines and states if fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed. The city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, mister Standing and inspector.

Next item, 5.5 on our agenda, case 15 dash 26, accept the affidavit noncompliance for respondents, Weston Road Investments, Columbus LLC at 705 Vine for permits. Inspector Rees?

I'm here. Right. All right.

Point of order, one of our counselors, madam secretary, this is for an affidavit of noncompliance. That is correct. And I am not familiar with our procedure in terms of how or if we entertain, someone that's here to speak about the property. Yes? I'm not sure have

It's at the board's discretion, but, you have done it in the past.

Okay. Any objection to hearing from the property owner?

She may have been sworn in.

I'm sorry?

I don't know if she's

been sworn just

01:30.

Oh, okay. You've been sworn

in. Okay.

Go ahead. Please step forward and share your name with us, please.

Sure.

And who you are?

Good afternoon. My name is Lauren Finissey. I'm here in representation of the owner of Western Road Investments LLC. I wanted to share just insight on you know that no work has been done since the violation and that we have attained a new contractor who is expected to pull a permit on May 3.