Municipal Code Enforcement Board - Regular Meeting

Come to order. Today's meeting of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board is called to order on 04/23/2025. Welcome, everyone. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Please be seated. Attendant of today's meeting are on the wall at the entrance to chambers. Please remember to turn off your cell phones. Municipal Code Enforcement Board consists of seven members who are appointed by the city council which serve voluntarily. It's 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 city codes with our codes within the city. The board considers 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, you will be escorted from the chambers. Now I ask all who plan to speak to rise and be sworn in by our clerk. Our first order of business is going to be review and approve the minutes of last month's meeting. May I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Motion to approve.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Minutes are approved. Is there anyone here today to speak on items that are not on our agenda? Nope? Alright. We will get started with our new business items, and that is 4.1 on our agenda, case number 21Dash25. Fine response fine respondents David J Lee at 319 Hilltop Avenue in violation of code for fences, exterior surfaces, and roof maintenance, and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that? Sir, will you come to the podium, please? State your name and address for the record to the clerk.

Hi. I'm David Lee, the owner of 319 Hilltop Avenue, Clearwater address? Yes.

Okay. I have one question for you. Do you admit or deny the violation?

Can I introduce myself to you guys first? My name David Lee. I'm a US Army veteran, so I'm gonna be 62 in July, So I'm back and forth. I still work up north. I'm back and forth. So so what happened is I have a feel

I'll get back to you on that. I just need you to answer. Do you have you do you admit or deny the violation?

No. They're there. Yes. I admit. You you admit it? Yes.

Alright. Have a seat right there, and we'll hear from the city, and we'll

get back to you. Okay.

Actually, I could ask for

motion.

No. Not yet. Mister Dixon, is the is the is the property in in compliance?

No. There are there are four violations. He's corrected one, and he's working on

some others.

Can I have a motion?

Mister chairman, 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 is granted. Mister Dixon, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, board. Greg Dixon, co compliance inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is case 21Dash25 for 319 Hilltop Avenue. There are four violations at this property for exterior surfaces, fence maintenance, roof maintenance, and an unsafe pool. This violation went out at the January with compliance date in the March.

This is the fence around the is the fence around the property. There is a pool in the backyard there. It was it was damaged, and then the storm damaged it even more in October. There is a tarp on the roof. There's mold and mildew on the exterior of the building.

Here's a picture of the backyard to show you the pool that's back there that's currently unsecured. This is today, and I met the owner at the property. He has taken the tarp off the roof. He's got plans to get this old fence out and a new fence up and then work on the exterior. But as of today, the fence is still there.

The tarp is gone. The exterior still needs to be pressure washed and probably touched up. So compliance can be met for the exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structural or decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, and faded peeling paint. Fence can fence maintenance can be compliance can be met for fence maintenance by replacing the fence or removing any remnants of the old fence. Removal of what remains of the old fence would gain compliance with some sort of barrier would need to be constructed to block access to the pool.

The roof has been taken care of, and for the unsafe pool, ensure the water in the pool is treated and the pump functions properly to circulate the water, and a barrier must be in place to prevent access to the pool. So for case 21Dash25, I'm requesting a declaration of violations for just the roof maintenance. And then for the other violations, request compliance on or before 06/01/2025 for the exterior fence and unsafe pool if violations continue to exist. Impose a fine of a $150 per day for each day the violation continues to exist.

Alright. Does

any board, do you

have any questions for inspector Dixon?

Yes. Is the pool holding water?

Yeah. He showed me pictures. He's got a pool company now to come service the pool. It just pump was off.

I'm sorry?

I guess the pump was off or inoperable, but he showed me that the pool is operating now.

Okay. The pool has water in it? Mhmm. This is like a below ground pool?

Right. In

ground It's not an above ground? No. Okay. Is the problem with the fence, does the fact that the fence is decayed and falling down, does that allow access into the pool area?

Yes. Okay, all right. Board, does anybody else have any questions? Inspector Nixon, you have a seat, we'll speak with mister. Mister Lee, come forward, sir.

And I wanna thank you for your service.

Oh, thank you. Appreciate it.

What's going on here?

One of the reasons we're here is I'm not retired yet, and then with the hurricanes and all the expenses, that might be pushed back. So I have PO box, and so the certified mails and stuff was going to the SPOC, so the only way I was alerted to this situation was in a yard sign was placed with a zip lock in this document, neighbor text me pictures and then had him send me all the stuff, rapidly boarded a plane, I'm here dealing with this. So that's the kind of person I am, fully intend to be a good citizen of clear water, things of that nature. So with that being said, 62 years old, reason I'm having this conversation with you is the June 1 deadline, I'm still working. What I do is I'm a heavy duty industrial electrician, I work for General Motors, Ford, so all the stuff with the car companies, so when we do a line change, I'm there 20 fourseven and I can't pull away.

But then when the project's done, I can come down here and do things. So I don't want to get caught with a tight deadline to try to meet all that. And then the other thing is I was actually communicating with Gregory maybe back in October, and I was trying to find a fencing contractor because that whole fence just needs to go away and do 120 feet of new fence. That's about 14 4x4s and all that kind of stuff. I even called today the 188 service to have all the utilities located, so we just don't willy nilly start drilling all this stuff.

So trying to do things right. So all that's going to take time. And I'm I'm going at the rate that I'm gonna have to do it all myself because between the fly by night people and things of that nature putting money, so I'm just preparing for the worst. Hopefully, goes a lot better than that, but that's my goal is to be fully cooperative with you guys.

We're here to work with

you. And so the more time I could get, if I could have like an August 1 do or die deadline, that would be very helpful with everything that kinda got going in the situation. And then I could also be communicate with Gregory on updates during that timeline?

Yes. That is that is that's recommended that you keep in touch with him.

Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely.

So everything that you get done. Inspector Dixon, you're requesting a declaration of violation for the roof maintenance as separate, being separate, or is this Yes. Okay.

Yeah, he took the roof, or the tarp off.

And the

reason the tarp was on there is because there's a 1980s addition, the home was built in 1924, the main structure, then there was an addition of a Florida room, and the swimming pool was placed in at that time, and so they put a completely flat roof on the thing, and so they just kind of roll roofed over the thing, and it had aggregate, and it was kind of So there's a white silicone paint painted on surface, so I applied that to that roof and kind of put up a tarp to shade myself while I'm doing this, you're supposed to not let it get real hot, all these rules, right? So I had to tarp on the main structure, it was in the process, and I ran out of time, had to go back up north to work, and that's why the tarp was still there, but that's off, and I'll just deal with whatever I have to with that application.

So the main structure didn't have really any roof damage, you just moved the tarp over

some Yeah, exactly, so that was kind of a sun shade thing, kind of a do it yourselfer, but that was an idea I had to try to keep myself out of the Florida weather and keep the project moving. Okay.

Well, board, do you have any questions for Mr. I

have one in general, want to make sure I understand the roof business, it's done, it's repaired, so there's, the roof is in compliance, it's just that we're looking for declarations, is that correct?

Yes, on the roof.

So, okay. Oh, go ahead. The other thing I wanted to mention that I don't see in this is when, I know, from my experience, when the fence is done, part of the thing that's gonna figure into the time for compliance is the permit for the fence. I don't I haven't heard that mentioned anywhere, but that is a factor that might affect our decision on the amount of time required for compliance.

Yes. And this will be a the offense will be a permit project.

Have you applied for the permit?

No. That's the next step. I I was actually gonna try to do that today or tomorrow. Okay.

I have a question, chairman. Mister Lane, I'm more concerned with the unsafe pool. What have

you done about that so no one

can wander in that pool?

That's a great question because that's a big concern of mine. So I fly out of here on Sunday, so I'm a take a strong look. I got I got maybe some help to try to do some things to get, even if I have to take some of the old panels and just put them up, just some way to keep children out of there.

Yeah.

And I might even get with Gregory on what's acceptable to the city. Don't even know if I have to put snow fencing up. I don't know. Whatever it takes. Chicken wire. I don't care.

Or something.

Yeah. Whatever. No. And I totally agree. So so yeah. Absolutely. So

thank you.

I'll definitely be communicating with Gregory with that because that's a worry of mine as well as all y'all.

Yeah. So Okay. Can I go ahead and get a declaration on this roof maintenance?

I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The violation is corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist.

Second. Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right, that declaration motion passes.

Excuse

me, Rebecca Mulder, Code Compliance. I just wanted to make a statement in reference to the permit portion. It's not specifically mentioned in our PowerPoint because a fence is generally a pretty expedited fence permit. It's not something that would take a significant period of time. It just needs a site plan and a general layout where it's going to be to ensure that it's within their setbacks and on their property. Other than that, it's a fast turnaround. So it wouldn't be something that would delay him from executing.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Lee, you're going to, you said you were going to call like the hotline for utilities to be, is it possible for you to, just put the post back where they were as a emergency as miss Mulder just explained?

Yeah. The

the the new fence is gonna not be in a on the sideline between property lines. It'll be in the same location, but there'll be some extra poles going in. So you're still gonna have But in an emergency situation, I could do something to try to secure that thing. Okay.

Board, he's asking for compliance on June 1. I have no problem with, he's got a lot of stuff going on here, and you know, he's flying in and out. I don't have a problem, you know, July, August, I don't have a problem. I thought he asked for August 1.

Yeah. I'd love August. I'd love

He'd love August, but

Here's an So

that is is our decision. What you guys would like to do, is August 1, is that enough time to

Yeah.

To yeah. Get everything together? Yes. Board, is that is that okay?

Well, except for the on-site pool, I think that should be taken care of first.

No. No. I'm gonna do that immediately. Before I fly out Sunday, there's gonna be no possibility a child could get to that pool. Okay. I'll I'll give you my word on that.

Thank you, mister Lee.

Yeah. Okay. I suppose in that case too, he could be in communication with the code compliance guy. Yeah. Correct. The most dangerous thing is the unprotected pool.

What I will do on the pool, because that's a big concern of yours and mine, is I'll get Gregory involved in that. Good. So then he can get you a picture of something, whatever was done.

Yeah, that's what Mr. King was just saying, stay in touch with Greg.

Yeah, yeah, but on that one, you need to know before I fly out Sunday, and I want to know from him before I leave that we're

We can all rest easy. Yes, exactly. Yes. Thank

you. If that's gonna be our decision, then let me get a motion.

Do you need a first you need a first on the those other three violations?

We already have a motion

on that.

On the other three? Okay.

Alright. Good.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before August 1. If the respondent does not comply by that date, then the board may order a fine of

$150,150

dollars 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? Alright, motion carries, thank you Mr. Lee. Thank you

very much board, and appreciate you guys, because I know you're all volunteer and stuff, so thank you. You for your

We appreciate you Mr. Thank you.

Alright, our next case on our agenda is 4.2, case number 22Dash25, fine respondents, Ossany A Perez Cardoza at 512 in violation of code for short term rental and residential business tax receipt and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is anyone here to speak on that? Declaration. Miss Green, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, board. This property is returned to compliance for seeking a declaration of violation. Alrighty.

I get a declaration.

I move to finally respond to what's in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing, and to enter an order that no fine be imposed, if the responder repeats the violation, the board may order a fine up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist. Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next on our agenda is 4.4, case number 20Four-twenty5, fine respondents, Ortol Bin Yaish at 2470 Shelley Street in violation of code for roof maintenance, and issue an order with the compliance deadline, and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? No? Inspector Maddox, have the floor.

Kevin Maddox, code compliance inspector. This has returned to compliance on the April 21, couple days ago, requesting a declaration of violation.

Alright. Beautiful. Can I get a declaration?

I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may enter a fine of up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist. Second?

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector Mattox. All right, next on our agenda is 4.5, it's been withdrawn. Next is 4.6, which has been continued to June 25. And next is 4.7, Case20Seven-twenty5, final respondents, Clearwater Pharma LLC, care of CVS at 1899 North Highland in violation in violation of code for landscaping and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? No? Inspector

Robert Robichow.

Robichow. I was gonna say two, but You have the floor,

Thank you.

And, excuse me, Ms. Mobin, is this the one word? Okay.

So 1899 North Highland. They are I'm a land development arborist, Robert Rove Show. They are in

so

they have one violation. It's their landscaping. According to the code, all landscaping needs to be in compliance with their approved landscape plan at all times. All areas have to be covered with shrubs, ground cover turf, or three inches of organic mulch. Anything dead or declining needs to be replaced.

Landscaping will be inspected every three years. And then the bottom section is just standards for things to be planted. I did the sent the violation on January 22. The compliance date was February 19. This is the approved landscape plan that I used and annotated.

This is a blown up portion of their property and the key stating what plant material would be planted. Here's the pictures of the areas that are noncompliance. They are not as stated on the landscape plan. There's supposed to be shrubs and ground covers in this area. There's some declining shrubs and another area without the approved shrubs and ground covers.

Same thing here and here. And this was this morning. No changes to the landscaping. They can come into compliance by planting the missing materials in their landscape as it shows on their landscape plan. We are requesting compliance compliance for, or on the twenty third, or a fine of $250 a day.

Board, do we have any questions for inspector?

Is this a This is a I know that that store's been there a while, this is more of a maintenance type issue or work that, something that should have been maintained and kept rather than something new,

correct? Correct.

Okay, thank you.

I believe it's been closed for quite a while. The CVS? Yes, on the corner of Highland and Sunset. It's been closed for a long time. Okay. It's not abandoned property, is it? I mean.

It's owned, they're trying

to sell

it right now.

They're trying to sell it, Okay. Right, well do you have any more questions for the inspector? I know it's closed here. No? Okay. Just upstream. Can I get a motion?

Here we

somebody else want to

take a turn?

What are we doing

here? First violation.

First violation? Yep. First motion, violation exists. I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

So I second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Okay.

I move to enter an

requiring the respondent I'm sorry. I move to enter an

order order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before what was our date?

May 23.

May 23. The respondent it's my first time doing this, sorry.

We're good.

On or before 05/23/2025. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $250 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. Second. All in favor. Aye. All opposed. Motion carries.

You did good.

All right, now we're on to old business. This is except the affidavits of compliance listed for case number 5.10.1, case 55.23, case 5.10.2, case 72Dash24, case 5.10.3, case 74Dash24, case 5.14, case 100Thirteen-twenty4, and case 5.1.5, case Seventeen-twenty5. I

move to accept the affidavits of compliance as listed.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Alright, motion carries. Alright, now on to 5.2 on our agenda case 97 Dash 24, accept the affidavit of non compliance for respondents Berg J. Smith, estate at 2080 Douglas Avenue for exterior services. Is there anyone here to speak on that? Oh, actually, we don't need to. Inspector Dixon, you have the floor. The violation still exists. Violation still exists? Alright. Can I get a affidavit of noncompliance?

Mister chairman, I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance. And if in order that it 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. Alright. 5.3 on our agenda case 99 dash 24, accept the affidavit noncompliance for respondents to Jonathan Wade senior at 1312 North Madison Avenue for portable signage unit. Is there anyone here to speak on that? Inspector Dixon.

This violation still exists also.

Still exists, okay. Can I get a motion?

I move to accept the affidavit of non compliance initial order that imposes fines and states that fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to propose collectors' substitutional.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right, other board action today, we're going to hear some lean reduction requests. Case number MHC200, consider request by petitioner Bruce Poe at 1126 Tangerine Street to reduce the fine RE demolition and if approved, issue an order that specifies the fine that includes administrative costs, establishes the date payable, or the lien will revert back to its original amount. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? I ask. Sir, will you come forward please? Will you state your name and address for the record, please?

Bruce 25590 64th Avenue North, and that's the part. Alright.

What's going on?

I purchased this property in 2021. It was a vacant lot. Mhmm. I was told there was some lien violations way way back in 2006 for going back to some homestead violations to 1999. And I recently started building on the property.

We had paid all the back taxes, the violations, but there's this demo fee that the city did back in, I believe, 2006. Yes, September 21. And that was $4,934.34 Since then, there's interest accrue of $9,095.41

Okay.

So I would like to kindly ask the Board to reduce that portion down to 1,000. I have already paid over 14,014 thousand $323.27 of the penalty for the homestead that the previous owner

incurred. Okay. So what was the what was the demolition cost on this 49 something?

4,000.

It's $4,934.34

$34.34 and what's administrative on this?

So this type of lien is the same as what you know as the abatement liens, that is the city's cost.

Okay. So we're, city's cost is basically $49.34, 34. Okay. Board, do you have any questions for Mr. Tudy?

No.

I do.

Go

ahead. When you purchased the property, did the title company make you aware of these fines that were due?

Yes. And they told us that we could request the reduction when we start construction.

When you started construction, but I'm not when you purchased the sorry? You purchased the property in 2021?

Yes. We started a permit in August 2024.

Okay. Thanks.

Board, what's your thoughts on this?

To clarify, that 40 ninethirty 4, that's a hard cost of the demo of the previous structure. Yes. And anything on top of that has just been interest and penalties, or whatever you want to call them. That 49 and change, that's a hard cost.

9,000 and something in interest? Yeah, the hard cost is 40 nine-thirty four-thirty 4.

So we really can't go below that. Right.

That's up to us. I mean, you know, I want the city to be reimbursed for what they had to spend out on the property.

Yeah. Because what I would like

to see, but that's, it's the Board's decision.

Mr. Chairman? Yes. But, So our position is that the Board, the city is entitled to recoup its costs, and the only way that the Board could essentially go below what the city actually spent would be if the board made some kind of finding that there was a legal error committed by the city. If everything the city did was proper, then the city's entitled to recoup the cost.

The interest that's accrued here is because this is a very old lien, as you can tell. But back when they did this, the process was a little bit different. And these liens went to The council would adopt a resolution and the lien actually references an interest rate that was 10% back at the time. It was 2006. So it's been accruing at a 10% interest rate ever since.

So that's why the interest is what it is here. Staff can give you some more information about the current situation at the property. We think that's always relevant for the board to consider. And then of course, whatever the current property owner plans to do with the property. There's some language in our code that talks about encouraging people to put money into the property to improve the property, and to the extent that liens can be reduced to encourage money to be invested into the property, that's something that the city code encourages and wants the board to consider.

So that's pretty much all I have, unless you had any questions for me. I just did want to clarify, this is a very old lien under a different process, and the interest was 10%, so that's why you see the numbers you see.

Was there

any I have a question.

Did the city pay for the demolition?

Yes. Yes. Yes. That's that's what we're saying is the He

acquired clean property. Right. A vacant lot.

Nothing But why wasn't the city paid for the demolition at the time?

They they were. I mean, the city would have paid the demo guy, but that puts the lien on the property that whoever fixed the property up has got to pay at some point.

Okay.

Which was my point. We can't go below Mr. Mr. We'd like to. We can't go below what the city has already spent.

Okay. Well, let's hear from mister Toolefield. Have a seat. We'll hear from the city real quick. Okay. And then we'll call you back up. Thank you, sir. Hello, board. I'm Kevin Garriott, the building official for City Clearwater, and this is inspector Catherine Reeves with me. So we put together just a little bit of history because this is an old case long before any of you were involved with this board. But you kind of heard it in pieces as different people have spoken. So we've got a little bit of PowerPoint presentation. We'll pull that up. You can see some of the pictures of what we did take down back in 'three? 'six.

'six. 'six, okay. And it started in 'three, it was 'three unsafe building abatement case. So I'll turn the floor over to Catherine.

Hi, board. I'm Catherine Reese, Code Inspector for the City of Clearwater.

Hi, Catherine.

Me just get my PowerPoint up for you. And it's spinning.

Take your time. That's alright.

K. So this is in reference to November. Catherine Breeze, code inspector. And the original case was, u n UNS200300010. And the violation for this is unsafe buildings and systems. This is for the notice of violation that was originally sent 01/21/2003. Date of month compliance date, certified mail was also sent 01/23/2003. Okay. And the notice of demolition went out 05/16/2003. And a final letter to housing authority was sent 05/19/2003.

This just is the property appraiser information. This is just the front of the structure, didn't look too bad, but once you look inside the home, mold growth, roof was caving, etcetera. It was definitely in need of demo. So it's just many pictures. Place the sticker that was done by Mr.

Bill Wright. And this is the pictures I took yesterday. So the new build is going up. We did address them dumping everything on the ground, having a silt fence that will be corrected. And again, as you stated, the city typically does not reduce the amount less than what the city incurred because that would go towards taxpayers paying for that at that point.

Board, do we have any questions for Inspector?

This is the time to appeal these fines and these liens prior to the purchase when you know it's you know the lien is there.

That would

be So why would you do it after, you know, three years after the purchase?

That would be optimal to do it while the title company searches it and tells you there is liens against the property. That would be the optimal time to do it. I can't speak for him or for Mr. Tuhi, it wasn't taken care of then. We'll bring him back up and if you would like to ask that question.

That's a good point.

Mr. Tuh, will you come back up please, sir?

That's a great question. I asked myself that when I got to this hearing. Honestly, it was advised that, I'm being honest with you guys, that if the lien passed twenty years that it would be removed. So that was my decision not appealing at that time. But I understand looking back that should have been looked into. Like I say, I plan to improve the property you know, add to the tax revenue base for the city.

Oh, yeah. You're doing a nice job. The pictures look really nice.

And like I say, it's been twenty plus years since it's been sitting as a vacant lot.

But you wrote you you weren't aware of the fines?

I'm sorry?

You were not aware of the fines?

I wasn't aware of, the fines, at at the time of purchase. Yes, sir.

Okay.

We do understand that we're sort of bound by what the city cost has incurred, and this isn't just lawyer administrative fees, this is actual physical demolition of the property and hauling all the stuff away and resurfacing or, you know, regrading the lot and everything. So Board, I would, my opinion is that we can take it down to the $4,934.34. If anyone else has I have a question.

If we do reduce it down to the demo cost, how many how soon can you pay that?

How soon? Go ahead. I I mean, we already paid the back taxes, can I ask a question? Can I request for half of that? And I can pay that, what's today? Wednesday. I can pay that by Friday.

I'm sorry, we're not gonna be able to do that. We have to, like I said I just wanted

to know how soon you could pay the $49.30, 43.

Which time does he need? Well.

Isn't it stated in in the

At least

how long they have

to thirty days.

Mine just says zero

at the line.

Mr. Chair, I mean, I'll be honest, I don't think this we don't have any objection if you want to give him we would object to you going below the costs, but if the amount of time to pay that, we wouldn't object to extending that timeframe.

Because if it goes back into default, it's going go back to the 14,000, if it's not paid in the time that, you know

I guess

question would be how much how much time, if if we assess the $4,934 and change, how

much thousand time

do you need to pay that?

Is sixty days enough?

I Yes, sir. Definitely.

Sixty? I mean

I'll make it next week.

We can at least do that.

I I wanna make it.

Go away, so

next week. Next Friday.

I'll make a motion. We wanna make sure you you have ample time to to do it, you know. We don't wanna, you know, put a crunch on it.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I'll pay it

off by next Friday.

Go ahead, Mr. Plumb. I move to enter an order reducing the amount of the lien to administrative costs of $4,934.34 payable within sixty days of the lien will revert to its original amount.

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. You, Board Chair.

Thank you, sir. All right, now on to our

next lien reduction, which is 6.2. One zero eight approved the stipulation agreement petitioner James Hogan at 108 Kenwood Avenue. Is there anyone here to speak on that? Okay. If you come forward. Both of us? Sure. Both of you are you planning both to speak? Yes. Okay. Well, come on up. Give your name and address to our clerk for our record, please.

Before we go forward with that, this is a stipulation agreement, and this is a little bit different than our usual lien reduction process. So, Mr. Simpson, I don't know if you want to go over it real quick. We've got some new members. It's been a while since we've done one of these.

Sure. Yes, so when folks come in and they ask for a lien reduction, you know, typically they would fill out an application, and the clerk would start to gather information, and then put the case on the agenda. In this particular circumstance, the contract purchaser approached the city, at least that's what I was told. From our perspective, we just want the properties to be brought into compliance, whether that is a new buyer that's going to come in and do it, or the current owner. It doesn't really make a difference to the city.

We just want to see it done as quickly as possible. And one of the things that we've discussed in the stipulations is trying to that it gives a buyer some type of certainty. So, the title company identifies an issue like this, the lien amount, in this case it was a few $100,000, more than that, I believe. You know, the property is underwater, so to speak, in that instance, where the value of the lien exceeds the value of the property. So, no smart investor is gonna buy a property that has a lien that exceeds the value of it, right?

So, in that instance, in order to help facilitate a transaction, the city can enter into an agreement with that buyer to give them some kind of certainty that they can then take to the title company to say, know, maybe to get financing, or to get the title insurance, whatever it is they need to close that transaction. With the stipulation agreement, they have a number. So instead of the hundreds of thousands of dollars lien that is continuing to accrue, because the property is in violation, so that number is getting higher. Now they know, that the city would be agreeable to reducing it to x. In this case, we put on the stipulation.

I had drafted it at 1,500 because I originally had seen an email that that was the request when the, I think, the application actually came in, it came in as, it was written down as 1,200 on the application. So, technically, I don't think we actually have a stipulation, because in my view, the stipulation means that both the parties that are appearing in front of the board, the city and the applicant agree the liens will be reduced to x number, and if the property is brought into compliance within y time frame. So, assuming both the parties agree on those important terms, we present that stipulated agreement to the board and then we ask for the board to approve it because the parties are agreeable to these terms. But this one was a little bit unusual because I drafted an agreement, we don't technically have it unless they can correct me, but I had drafted the agreement, with the terms of the property coming into compliance on or before July 1, and that the amount being reduced to 1,500 based on that, and that it would be paid in full within thirty days. Now, I also saw a contract.

I think it looked to me, by the contract I saw, that the parties were supposed to close a couple of days ago. So I don't know if there's some updates they can enlighten us on. If you have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them. I think the bottom line is that we've got a lien. The property's not in compliance yet, but we're agreeable the city is agreeable to giving some kind of assurance to the buyer that if they can bring the property into compliance within a certain timeframe, that we will stipulate to an amount it would be reduced to.

Hopefully, that would be, if they haven't closed yet, hopefully it's a number that the title company can hold in escrow, or something like that, that helps them close, and they can get to work and bring the property into compliance.

Okay.

If anybody has any questions about that, I'm happy to answer.

No, you explained that very well, sir. Once again, state your name for the the James Hogan. Alright. So what is the update on this property, fellas?

The update is well, I've I've lived there all this time. I fell in this first of all, was a single parent. I raised my two kids from one and three. So anything that I had, of course, went to the kids. I mean, got no teeth and, you know, that kind thing because 800 on a cap or, you know, take care of the kids was the was the situation.

Come to find out several years ago, I didn't realize I had some undiagnosed health problems. One of them was hypothyroidism where I was real low on thyroid hormone, which I don't know if anybody's had it or are familiar with it, but it affects every part of your body, even your emotions. And I was in pretty bad shape. Started treating that and ended up with a six way bypass. Never heard of a six way bypass until the doctor said it.

So I was not moving really good for a long time. I didn't know it. The property fell into into disrepair, and you know, I I apologize. I, you know, I can't say it didn't. And he got ahold of James here, and he said, look, I did the property next door, and I do have a picture on my phone if you'd like to see what he did with the property next door. It's an amazing looking property now. He said, I buy yours, sir, and we'll do the same thing if the city will let us. And my my my daughter, she she lives in Tennessee, and she's willing to take care of me till what happens. So and I'd like that relief if you guys would grant that

to me. Okay. Well, I'm sorry to hear about some of the troubles that you've had over your life and commend you for raising your children. Amen. You know, as a single father. I don't have any problems with myself. Do you have any questions for the fellows here? I I don't have any, problems with with staying to this stipulation agreement that they have with the city. The is, mister Hogan, do you is is July 1 gonna be time for you to

I was I was actually gonna ask for possibly a small extension because we do get permits for everything, has been causing major delays for all my projects right now. So just to just to mitigate some risk on that, if we could have maybe till September 1, if possible. Because a lot of the permit process between getting plans, getting them stamped by an architect, then submitting and getting it approved has been taken like literally three months, especially after the hurricane.

So we had this discussion when we were talking about drafting this, and one of the things that we had discussed, and I hadn't had time to amend the agreement, and then given that we had some questions whether or not we were going to be able to stipulate the actual terms, I figured we would just hash this out here. But one of the things that we had discussed was that if we could leave the tight timeframe for the largest reduction, and then we could essentially amortize the amount, such that so if they could get it done by sorry, the way it's drafted right now is If July they can get it done by July 1, the city would agree to 1,500, and then, you know, every three months or so, would go, the amount would go up. So, which I can put some terms together, but that was something that we had discussed that we were agreeable to, because that would incentivize them to move quicker. They would get a bigger reduction if they got done more quickly. But ultimately, like I said, the stipulation agreement would be that we kind of agreed all this beforehand and then present that to you.

That's not exactly we weren't exactly able to get that done here, but I don't necessarily have an outright objection to you extending the time, but we were hoping that if it does take longer, you know, I guess that's one of the considerations for the board. The longer it takes, then there's less of a reason to reduce the amount. That's what the code says.

I have a question about that. Does that mean that we would kick it down the road for thirty days and you would give us the wording of an order that we could execute? Because I don't know how

I'm okay with that as well, but I don't know how that affects I mean, you all closed the deal? Are you closed? Or No.

We we need to do that.

You delayed your closing?

No. We need to not delay our closing.

Well well, man, we were supposed to close a few days ago. Have delayed it till after this. We're hoping to get this resolved, and then I was gonna close and pay it off at the closing, the 1,500. That was the plan. Okay.

Okay.

Does that make sense?

Yes.

Yeah. And I I do I mean, like I said, I've got a photo of the house next door that he he took care of. And, I mean, if you guys would like to see it, I'll grab my phone and show it to you. It's it's what Florida should be. You know?

A lot a lot of the neighbors are really happy. We've had multiple neighbors come up to us, they're pumped because, you know, they've waiting for it.

With my property. I I think that the city would

be very happy with it. Agree.

I'll be out of your hair.

I think our challenge is to figure out a wording for today or just do it, do the 1,500 for today so that they can have an order in place, do their closing, and then I don't know how we deal with the rest of that.

Well, I have a question. You said you would close and then you would pay the fine, but then you were also asking for September 1 to pay the fine?

No, to get into compliance. We're going pay the fine at the closing, but if we could have until September 1 to get into compliance, because we have to get permits and everything as well, which can take a long time.

Think

that's reasonable. If we use hard money to buy the house because it's like it causes delays because if we get reimbursed in draws, so it's like the roof gets done, then we got to go take a picture, wait three days, partner doesn't wanna send it to the contractor, you know, it's, so it's just delay, delay, delay, delay all So the that's why I just wanna make, you know, make sure that we're not setting ourselves up for failure.

So how do we you. Put an

Does, counselor, does, if they close on the property, say within the next, if we go with this stipulation, and they pay the fine, but they don't come in compliance until July 1.

September 1.

Or September 1. Yeah, if they don't come into compliance by July 1, and we extended out to August or September, does that negate all this agreement? Or is it would

defer to the Board Attorney on how you should structure the motion or what you should say. I mean, from my perspective as the representative of the city staff, we discussed this with our director, and she was agreeable to the July 1 being the deadline to agree to the 1,500, and then every if three months after that, it would essentially, the amount would increase. Now, didn't draft the agreement to say that, but, you know, in my view, if this is the Board's, you know, the Board has, this is not a hard cost lien to the city, so I think the Board has pretty broad discretion on how you want to address this. We do have some costs. I think we could tell you what those are exactly if I don't have them in front of me, but they're a little less than 1,500, the city's cost for investigating the case and sending out notices and things like that.

That's where the 1,500 number came from, is that that covers the city's investigative and administrative costs. Like I said, we were just trying, we want to incentivize quick turnaround. The agreement also does not, we would not officially release the lien. So, when you have your board order, that order remains unpaid for three months. The clerk goes and records that in the public records, that's when it becomes a lien.

That's how the title companies find it. In order for it to no longer be a lien, to get removed from being a cloud on the title, the city has to record another document called a release or a satisfaction. So the way that this is structured is we would not record that release until it was brought into compliance. Because if we go and we release the lien, then we've basically given up every leverage that we have. We would have to start another case over to get a new lien in order to try to enforce compliance again.

So, we wouldn't agree to release that, but in my experience, title companies would typically will hold this money in an escrow account, and then once the city, once it's brought into compliance, the title company can be notified, and then they will make the payment to the city at that time from the escrow account, and then we would record the release. I can't speak to what their title company has said or if they're even getting title insurance, I don't know, but I'm just giving you some of my experience in these transactions.

I have a question. Go ahead.

So based on what we're trying to accomplish here today in terms of handling the lien and providing the time that's been requested, this stipulation agreement doesn't fly because of the dates. Is that correct?

Well, it sounds like we I drafted a stipulation agreement based on some emails that I had seen about Mr. Hogan's request. It sounds like they've encountered some new information maybe since those emails were sent, and now they're asking for a little bit more time. And we just weren't able to discuss that with the appropriate city staff in order for us to agree to what they're asking for now. They're asking for a little bit more than what I was under the impression originally in terms of having more time than he's explained why.

I'm not saying it's not a legitimate reason. Just saying I wasn't aware of that until now. So, can't stipulate to it, which would mean that we both agreed to it. But that doesn't mean that the board you know, this is still your discretion to decide. If you were to accept, you know, accept what he's asking for, then I think you have to, you'll have to figure out how to make that motion with your attorney.

I think I have an attempt for the motion.

Okay.

Well, hold on, we're not done yet. You'll get ahead of yourself.

If I can finish my thought on it, we have before us a stipulation agreement, and based on the data we've gotten today, it seems like this stipulation agreement that what is needed by the property owner, etcetera, and purchaser falls outside of what this says. And so if we're gonna accept or reject, do something with the stipulation agreement, we need to have a valid stipulation agreement, unless there's a wording of a motion or we can do something other by compiling an order of some sort that gives everybody what they need today. Otherwise, we need a changed stipulation agreement, unless I'm misreading this thing.

Mr. Chair, if I may. Yes. If the board gives us terms, I can draft an agreement based on the terms that the board gives me, and get approval from your attorney that it meets the intent of the board, and then they can sign it, and they can close their transaction and get to work. Because that's what the city I think that's what all of us want, is for them to be able to get to work and fix up the issues.

So, if we delay it, I guess I just you know, again, we want to help them bring the property into compliance. Sure. Obviously, it's the Board's discretion on whether or not what the amount of the fine should be and how long that time frame should be and all that. So, but I'm comfortable that if the board gives me terms, we can get an agreement that can be signed.

Think I have the terms possible.

Well, does the city have some drop dead point where you say, hey, look, you can say, I don't know, I'm just making something up here, dollars 1,000 per quarter ad infinitum, is there at some point like two years or someplace where you kick in this paragraph that's paragraph five that says, hey, if it's not brought into compliance by now, the whole thing's null and void. And you go back to the original lien or something like that. There's got to be some drop dead point.

Rebecca, Code Compliance Manager, so whatever date you set as the, for the amendment stipulates. So if you stipulate to a September 1 to have compliance, theoretically, the way that that would execute is that we would wait till the September 1 if it was brought into compliance before or up to that date, then we would be okay with the agreed upon amount, say the 1500 or whatever amount that you're, gonna make motion for. If they don't come into compliance by that date, the city could then, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Jared, but then the city could, the leads would revert back to the original full amount, and they would be responsible for paying that.

Okay. I have a

I'm sorry.

Go ahead,

The statement is, as a business man, they're putting out over a $100,000. He's gonna get that thing ready to sell as soon as he can. You know, he's he's not gonna hold, you know, drag his feet.

We're we're just trying to work it out up here to where That is. That's best for you guys.

Oh, absolutely.

You know, to make sure everybody is whole again. My question could be either for our council or the city's council. If we stayed with the stipulation agreement and we kept it at July 1 and he wasn't into compliance, that revert him back to having the inspector come out and find him in noncompliance or starting a process of noncompliance from July 2 until it comes into compliance as a separate, maybe a separate case or, you know what I'm saying?

Yes, I understand what you're saying. And the way that I've worded it is that essentially the agreement becomes void. It's like it never happened if they are unable to make the deadline. Now, that the deadline is in July, we will have two board meetings between now and then. So, think one option, the board could just adopt the agreement as drafted, and then we could come back, we could discuss further and amend the agreement between the parties, and come back next month with a more specific set of terms that are negotiated when we have the information on their permits and that sort

of thing. I was thinking either the amendment amended agreement or addendum to this agreement if it's adopted today. Don't know if that would get too messy, though. I like that.

If possible, we could just

Do we have a meeting next Yeah.

This one. Just change, maybe push it out a month. I I like, I don't know where you're Yeah.

Well, we I'm I'm fine with pushing

it out.

I've done

pushing the whole thing out a month.

With code enforcement issues. It's not my first one bringing it into compliance, I understand how it really works. You guys are you gotta check every morsel of it. So I I've done it before, believe me. And we're gonna get this done. And at the end of the day, the goal is to beautify Clearwater in Pinellas County. I've done it in Pinellas County. I live in Tampa. I've done in Hillsborough County. We're gonna beautify the neighborhood. The neighbors are literally multiple are coming up and thanking us for what we did next door. The only house left is this street. It's in a beautiful location that some people don't love, but it's an amazing location. We're gonna help beautify that area. It's close to downtown. It's close to Clearwater Beach, and we're gonna tremendously help the community. I'm honored to even sit here and say that we're gonna

help the community because we are. It's just if I have

to go get a full remodel permit, get plans, get everything, get hard money, and then I'm waiting on draws, and I have to get it done in two months. It's it's almost impossible. You know? And then it sets me up, or I could just not buy it and walk away. And then a dump sits there. You know?

I live there forever.

You know? I mean, it's just speaking matter maybe not matter of fact, but bluntly. You know, it's just gonna sit there. It's the only eyesore in the neighborhood, we're gonna about to fix it. You know? Any any sort of house next door, I just wanna get it done today so I don't have

to come back. If we just can maybe push

it back a month, I'll pay the 1,500 at the closing. We'll close in a week. We'll get it done.

So we can

Rebecca Mulder, co manager. I did wanna mention because there was talks about doing an addendum or an amendment at the next meeting. I do want to remind the board that we do not have a meeting in May that it was canceled. So it would be a June meeting if you did that amendment or addendum. So I want to make sure you have that information before you make any specific decisions and make sure that the applicant is aware of that as well.

Thank you, Rebecca. Think I was only the other one that knew

we didn't have a meeting next month.

Well, I like the addendum item or amendment to the stipulation. I like that idea.

It'll be a must do since we're no meeting next month. It'll be a must do for the January I mean, for the June meeting to make sure that everything runs smoothly.

Yeah. Can we split the difference and push it out to August instead of September? We

would bring him, know, he might have everything in place by then, you know, who knows.

Well, no harm in that.

It's, you know, I don't have a problem, you know, at all with, you know, with whatever we decide to do, you know, I just want to make sure that, you know, everybody's on the same page of what's going with this property. So does anyone else have any questions?

Well, if we move it out to August 1, is that gonna give you what you need to close?

August 1 should be fine.

I think three months we'll be able to get it done.

Well, think just to simplify this and we can move on is that I'll just say the city will agree to August 1, and that would just be to amend the, essentially the stipulation agreement that I've drafted. The board could approve that with the amendment that paragraph one be amended to say August 1. And I believe that sounds like we might have an agreement on that.

That would

work. That would help you, right?

Yes, sir. That'll work.

All

right, any other questions, Board? Nope. All right, can I get a motion on this? Have hard one work. Mine's totally different.

My motion says

so. You're going for $700? I think it was it's already out of here.

Where we have the statements here on our standard pattern on reducing it, it says within days we could save by a certain date, and

I believe we can. Okay. Can we, can we, of us putting a date of August 1 instead of saying ninety days, would that be allowed? Because the way we'd read it, it would be in a certain amount of days instead of August 1. I don't know if you want to do that.

The city is asking for you to approve the stipulation agreement, and with the modification that paragraph one be amended to August 1. So it's a little bit different than your standard lien reduction motion in your suggested motion packet. I'll have to work on that with the clerk and the board attorney to address this. But given that this is a buyer compliance agreement, there's a lot of different ways that people rephrase these things, but my recommendation as the representative of the city would be that the motion be to approve the stipulation agreement with the amendment that paragraph one be changed to 08/01/2025.

Okay. Alright. You want an order? Let's let's have an order. If everybody's in agreement? Alright. Let's have an order.

I move to accept the stipulation agreement on case thirty nine dash fourteen with the amended change of changing item one to the date of August 1. Payable within?

The rest of those terms are in the agreement. The thirty day payable, all that's in the agreement. So it's it says the reduced amendment the reduced amount shall be paid within thirty days of the date that the property is brought into compliance.

All right, so continue to continue payable within thirty days of the date that the property is deemed to be in compliance.

Do I

have a second?

I'll second it.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. Congratulations, Next on the docket is nuisance abatement lien filings 7.1 on Agenda Case 20 Nine-twenty five, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Karrueche Development LLC and 1 Verbena Street for lot cleaning initial order with compliance of deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this one? Miss Green, you have the floor? You're not miss mister Kasman. So

Yeah. I've been boarded. Daniel Kasman's out today, so I'll be giving the presentation. Sarah Green, code compliance supervisor for the city of Clearwater. This is case number 29Dash25For 51 Bina Street. It is a nuisance abatement. There's one violation for code section three dash 15 o three b five a b seven b eight for lock clearing. These are the dates the notice of violations were sent, the compliance date, and the affidavit of posting. This is a picture of the posting that Dan did on March 20. You'll probably recognize this property.

We brought it, I believe, last month for an abandoned building. So it does have fines and, liens occurring on it for that. This one is just for the outside, the grass, and the overgrowth that you'll be looking at today. So on the date of posting on March 20, you can see that the grass is starting to be overgrown. Infection is starting to grow over onto the sidewalk. There's some debris on the property, some pompoms, some other miscellaneous trash on the property. This is on the twenty eighth after the compliance date. And then this was yesterday. It's now several feet tall. No change on the property growing over the sidewalk.

So compliance permit for lot clearing by mowing the lawn, edging the curb and sidewalk, and removing all debris from the premises. We're requesting compliance on or before five days from the date the board registers order.

Has there been any contact with the developer? None at all? Not as far

as the board. I

mean, that looks like a nice place and they're starting to see the new brick or the new block.

Yep, it's nice lot on North Beach, but it's been that way for

a while.

I remember. That's a shame, yeah. Moore, do you have any questions for Ms. Green? No? Who wants to leave? Can I get a motion for a motion today?

Maybe one of our newest members would like to read it. Anyone? Okay. I'll read it.

Page seven, guys. If anyone down there wants to read this one, page seven.

We all need practice.

Nuisance abatement liens, you start at

the top.

Page seven.

Yep, and start reading. Who wants to do it?

I'll do it.

Nobody else is saying so. Alright. Go ahead. Nuisance okay. The nuisance abatement liens. I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written odor order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with a reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property. If costs, 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.

Thank you.

Next on our agenda 7.2 case number Thirty-twenty5 accepting nuisance abatement lien for respondents William Black at 2,390 Willow Tree Trail for lot clearing and inoperative vehicle and issue an order of compliance deadline authorized to mitigate city to mitigate the violations. Compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that? Inspector Stevens or this is Stefan's in this one. Steven, you're a in s instead of e in s. No. Inspector Stevens, have the floor.

Good afternoon, board. John Stevens, co compliance inspector for the city of Clearwater. This is case number 30Dash25 regarding 2390 Willow Tree Trail for nuisance abatement. We actually have two violations going on in the case here. You have code section three dash 15 o three b five a for lot clearing for accumulation and placement of nuisances and then, 3 dash 15 o 3 b 6 for the storage of inoperable vehicles.

I'll go through the lot clearing first and then we'll do the inoperable vehicles afterwards. Notice the violation was posted and mailed for both violations on March 19 with a compliance date of April 2. I never got the certified mail back, but as you can see on my note there, I actually talked to the property owner that day, when I did the posting about several issues going on at the property, which we'll also have another code board on next excuse me, in June to deal with some other issues. These were the postings on the day. You can see the lot clearing one and then you can kinda see the orange one on the side of the, RV there.

That's one of the inoperable vehicles. And this is some of the debris that was laying around the yard, some fencing, looks like some type of almost like a radiator or something out of a car, maybe out of an air conditioner stacked up, against the house there. A little history on this house, it actually burnt down over a year ago and somehow it has been setting in limbo and has just become a great big public nuisance all the way around. There's some pompoms here, there's a fencing that's falling around, partially down around the backyard, and as you can see there, it's kind of creating access, to that pool area there, which is another issue that we're dealing with. And this was on the compliance date of April 2.

You can see nothing has changed. We still got the fencing down, the machinery pieces, different palm fronds and fencing still down there. And then this was, today from the front angle and you can see the machinery still there. Somebody actually raked the, leaves up and bagged them, but there's no active utilities at that property, so that will not end up getting picked up by solid waste. And again, we still just have scattered debris throughout the yard.

So moving on to our inoperable vehicles, these were the postings from that March. There's three cars there, three of them were inoperable. As soon as I talked to him, then very quickly, got the third one, a tag, renewed on it, so it it took care of that one issue. But the van here and the camper that you can see still have, expired tags on them, flat tires, the camper actually tires are fine, it's more of a tag issue on it. But as you can see there, there's the one flat tire, the lack of the tag on the camper.

And then this was on the compliance date. Again, the tire wasn't fixed. Camper doesn't have a tag. And, then, this was today. As you can see, the tags expired on the van, tire still flat, and our camper if it'll go to it.

Again, slow to load that picture. Again, doesn't have a tag on.

There's someone living in there? No. Are you sure?

This is where I talked to him at, but he told me he's living at his brother's. I see

I see the steps are down.

That I have encountered him. It was at that initial date. So compliance can be met for the lot clearing by removing all the trash and debris from the property, by the compliance date and maintaining the condition of the property on a regular basis. And then for the storage of inoperable vehicles, they need to maintain the legal mechanical condition of all vehicles on the property. This could be accomplished by displaying a valid license plate, keeping the tires inflated or removing the vehicles from the property.

John, I have one question for you. I've seen in one of your pictures, the pool has green lagoon water in it.

That's another case that's going to be coming up in June. We're

moving into mosquito season, while we're already there. Stagnant water tracks and ploughs and medical wandering is up. Yeah.

The fence is down too.

Was gonna say,

yeah. My concern is a is a significant safety hazard,

you know,

full of water. That's something we're looking into addressing.

Everybody's leaving their poos, you know, and not protecting them when they leave.

Inspector Stevens, I was gonna ask, when when when you say, you know, having the tires good and good plates and stuff, but that camper can't be out front anyways, right?

It's not supposed to be, but technically where it doesn't have a valid tag that makes it inoperable by our code.

Okay, so if we even did put an operable tag on it, it still can't be there.

It's not supposed to be stored in residential areas unless it's in a side yard or backyard and screen with some type of fencing.

Yeah, that's what I was trying

to get

at. Okay, I'm sorry for interrupting.

So for the lot clearing, we're requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. If you guys want to make your motion on that one, then we'll do the inoperable vehicle on that. Okay.

You have any questions on that first on that lock clearance violation?

I think we can do this one motion.

Wanna do it one motion?

Do it all in one? Okay. Yeah. Okay.

Well, then let me do my second part here then for the storage of an operable vehicle. We are requesting compliance, on or before May 7, to allow them to try to obtain those tags and if not, a fine of $150 a day for each day the violation exists.

Any other questions for Inspector Stevens?

That one says May 7. This what we're on our new abatement lien says within five days.

Yeah. So that's a

conflict between the two Why

you wanted to Yeah. That's why I wanted the two different

So shall we just revert back to two different motions? Okay. Let's do that. Let's go back to two different motions. I'll do the first one on the the lot clearing violation.

Okay. On the lot clearing violation, I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring respondent to correct violation within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property. If costs, 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? First motion carries. For the

Somebody want to do the next one? I do. The next one. Who wants to do it? Inoperable vehicle.

Okay. On the vehicle, inoperable vehicle. I moved in on an order of finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order.

May 7.

I'm sorry. May 7. Correction. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, May 7, the city may take all reasonable actions including entry into the property. Will not

Sorry, board. That one's we're actually seeking fines

Yes.

On that one for that inoperable vehicle. This would

be just like a regular violation. Yeah.

I'm on the wrong page. On the

wrong page.

I'm on the wrong page.

It's amateur hour up here guys today. Alright. So

No, it's not an amateur hour, it's a problem. It's not even that.

Just kidding.

We're all fumbling. You want a first motion, is that what you want?

Yes, sir, please.

I move to find a respond to violation of the code as referred to and updated in this case.

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

I move to enter an order of crime to respond to the correct violation on for May 7. If the respondent does not comply by the date, the border may order a final 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. Right, case is 7.3 on our agenda case number 30One-twenty5, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Alto Asset Company five LLC at 1480 Park Street for lot clearing and issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Is anyone here to speak on that? If you'll step forward and state your name and address for the record, please.

Name is Shannon Finley, f I n l e y. Address, 2701 West Bush Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.

Okay. Can you give us a little information on what's going on here?

Basically, there's semi compliance. They did the front, but not the back. So I'm gonna have to send a vendor in to take care of it since the resident did not. Okay. I'd like to have maybe a two week extension. Okay. Because I can't just send a vendor, I have to get bids. Mhmm. Maybe two to four weeks.

Okay. Well, have a seat right there and we're gonna hear from the city and they actually, their compliance date might be in two to four weeks, we'll see what it is and then we'll go from there. Thank you. Inspector, Stevens, you have

the floor?

Yes, board. Again, this is, 1480 Park Street for case, 31 Dash 25. Again, a nuisance abatement. There's one violation here of 3Dash15O3B7 for lot clearing overgrowth. Notice of violation was sent on the May 18 or excuse me, March this year.

The compliance date of the March 28. Certified mail was not received by us, but we had physically posted the property which you can see there in my picture, which gave them that date. And I will say originally this was not only for overgrowth, but they also had some loose trash in the yard. And this was actually a citizen complaint, from the property behind them, but saying that the backyard was just growing out of control. And when I went to inspect the property, there was also issues at the front.

The front was not as undergrown as the back, but again, there was loose trash and they very quickly after I posted it, they mowed the front, picked up the trash, but then they they've never touched, the back. So this is the state of the property that day, which is, kind of hard to see the the biggest part of the violation here. But when you zoom in down the sides of it, you can see, from the street there, that's how overgrown it was, in the back that you can see it from the side. This was actually a couple days after the compliance date and you can see that there was no change to the backyard even though the front had been mowed as you can see there in the one picture. And then today again, there's no change to the overgrowth in the back.

So compliance can be met for this by cutting the grass both in the back and the front of the property including the curved line, excuse me, and, continuing to maintain it. And then we are requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order.

Would you have any questions?

Yeah. Inspector. How do you

feel about giving them another two weeks?

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other as long as they come in compliance with you. Okay. So I know that she's with the company that's managing the property for the owner. So I know that doesn't look good for them if they don't get it done. So I'm fine with that. Okay.

Alright. You you wanna come back forward to the podium? So two weeks, is that is that gonna be enough time for you to get some bids out there and get people in in there to get a If fix

the first vendor bid comes in acceptable for the bid department, they may approve it and they go quick.

You speak in the microphone please? Sure.

The first vendor's bid comes back and is accepted by the bid department, then it may go very quickly. If the first bid comes back and it's excessively high, they may want a second opinion. So that could take more than two weeks. Could we do two weeks and then I update Inspector Stevens if it looks like it's going to go past that?

We've already been through. We've already had it as a violation, so we're kind of past that. Think

our

Rebecca Mulder, Code Compliance Manager. I just wanted to clarify that this is a PNU case that we're looking for a board order to abate. So if you guys execute the order, then after that five days, then the inspector would have the ability to go out and abate. If you're working with the inspector and, you provide him with something that says you'll be out there to get adjusted, I'm sure that we would work with you within that two week span. But we would be requesting that the board uphold this request for approval of the board order so that we have that should anything fall through or for future events that may

occur. Okay. Do you think that you can, like, submit this to your your people who bid, and we'll know within five days?

I'm going to submit it to a vendor tonight, but they'll to go out and assess it and provide their bid. So should be a bid by Monday at

the latest. Now whether or not that's approved Well

I I don't do approvals.

Chairman like manager, Molder was saying, basically, I've got a little bit of leeway. So if she gets her bid back and they want a second opinion or something like that, I don't have to go out immediately. But the city would have that ability that again, if this turns into, well now it's three weeks or four weeks, now we can go ahead and take care of the problem. So there's a little bit of flexibility there.

Okay. Well, board, what I think we should do is we should stick to the original order and Inspector Stevens can keep in contact and, you know, you guys can see where we're at and go from there.

Sounds good to me.

I just have a question. Was this the tenant's responsibility? Now it's falling to you? Yes. Okay, thank you.

Lucky you. And

the gentleman over there had a question.

He had his hand up, I don't know if he may ask him. Board, do you have any other questions? Well, I think that's what we'll go ahead and do. We're just gonna go ahead and stick with the five days and you can keep in contact with Inspector Stevens and let him know what's going on. Like he said, if it, you know, if it comes back, you know, three weeks, the city's gonna come in here and clean it up.

And then you guys are gonna have, you know, maybe your your people do it a lot cheaper than the city, I think. So, know, you just gotta kinda tell your people that are, you know, making these decisions that, you know, this is a you don't want the city to do it or you want us to do it, it's going to So, cost a lot all right. Okay, can I get a, can I get a motion? Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of the code and requiring the respondent to written violation within five days of the Board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property, to abate, maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with reasonable costs, which will become a lien on the property. If cost, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

And a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion approved.

Thank you, board.

Alright. Our next

Thank you, John.

Thank you. Our next case is 7.4 on our agenda case number 32Dash25. Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Lance Willard and Bianca Lazaraga at 1109 Charles Street for lock clearing and issue in order with compliance deadline authorized to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Dixon.

Well again, Board, Inspector Dixon, City of Clearwater co compliance.

That says I've

got some. 11O9 Charles? This says 1007. I don't know the wrong one. You're on

the wrong one, Yeah.

You're the last Sorry.

Coffee time.

Am I right? Is it Charles now?

Yeah. You're right. You're right. Right.

You were testing you.

Alright. This is case 32Dash2511O9CharlesStreet. It's a nuisance abatement case. There's one violation for overgrowth and accumulation of trash and debris. Property is posted, mid March with a compliance date of ten days.

Certified mail never came back. These are the postings in March. This property is it looks like it's being renovated. It looks like they're almost there, but I haven't seen any progress. It's been since the storm that anybody's been there, I think.

I have been in email contact with one of the owners, and they told me they're aware of the issue. I explained how to come into compliance, and they said they'll, reach back out in a couple of weeks, and then they'll reach back out. So now we're here. It's just overgrown and unmaintained. And this is this morning. There's no change at the property except the grass is taller. Sidewalk's impassable.

Is anyone there?

Nope. Well, compliance will be met by removing all

the overgrowth and debris and requesting compliance five days after

the Board renders its order.

Board, do you have any questions for Inspector Dixon? No? All good. Everybody good? All right. Can I get a motion?

Me. Move. I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the specified I'm sorry, within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable costs, which will become a lien on the property. If costs, 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? All right, motion passes. Next on the agenda is 7.5 case 30 three-twenty five, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents James and Andrea Butterworth at 1007 Jones Street for lot clearing, and issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Jones Or sector Dixon, do have the floor?

I'm sorry. Director Dixon, co compliance for the city of Clearwater. This is case 33Dash25 for 1,007.

My first house I bought when I moved here was on Jones Street.

There's one violation at this property for overgrowth and maintain right of way and accumulation of trash and debris. The property was posted at the April. Here's the day of posting. There is a tree through the roof. I was contacted by a contractor that's in the area that he's going to have the grass mowed over the weekend, so this board and mortar might not be used, but just in case.

So we're dealing with a tree house?

Yeah. You can see that tree kind of in the back that's going through the house, not by the house. This was this morning. There's no change at the property. Hopefully, it'll be addressed over the weekend, at least the vegetation will be.

So it

still has utilities to it? I see the trash cans out. No. Are neighbors trash cans.

Oh, okay. But but to be clear though, we're not we're not asking to abate the tree No. To remove the tree. No. We the city would just cut the overgrowth, and the tree would I

just want the grass cut. The sidewalk cleared. Clear the compliance can be met by clearing the overgrowth and debris from the property, and clear the sidewalk any vegetation growing in the sidewalk and the street, and requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order.

Alright. Any questions for inspector Dixon? No. Alright. Mister Plum, do this one.