Municipal Code Enforcement Board - Regular Meeting

Today's meeting of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board is called to order on May 27. 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. Agendas of today's meeting are on the wall at the entrance to 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 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 15 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 chambers. Now I ask all who plan to speak to rise and be sworn in by the clerk. 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? Make a motion. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next on the agenda, our new business items. Our first case, 3.1 on the agenda, is continued from January 28, 2026. It's case 14-26. Find respondents Richard and Janet Carnevale at 681 Castler Avenue in violation of code for permits and issue an order with a compliance deadline and find compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this item? Aye. Sir, would you come forward and state your name, your address?

I'm Richard Carnevale, address 681 Castler Avenue, Clearwater.

Thank you, sir. You're the owner of the property? Yes, I am. All right. Thank you. If you'd like to have a seat, we'll have the inspector present her case.

Good afternoon, co-board. I hope everyone had a good weekend. I am Inspector Kat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is for case 14-26 at 681 Castler Avenue. This is going to be for one violation for section 4-203.A.1 for no person shall commence any construction, demolition, modification, or verification of a building or structure without first obtaining a building permit. Specifically, this is for a permit required for the structure that was with a concrete pad on the property. There were multiple notices of violations sent. The first one was sent back in 2020, so this is another one of those old cases. With my final being December 8th of 2025, certified mail was signed. I've also posted on the property. This is going to be on Castler, so it's just south of Palmetto Street. And this is the original inspector's photos of the structure that was being built at the time. And it has also a window that has been installed. And this is, as of today, which is very difficult to see with the tree, but the roofing is still there. You can still see the window through the fencing from Street View. And there is the roof as well. So I have been in communication with Mr. Carnevale. He has attempted to, he needs an FLS, which is why he did the first continuance of flexibility.

Okay.

I don't want to say the V word, but most of you know it is that. So he did come in the office and started the FLS. However, it was incomplete for the timeframe that they allow. which they had to end up voiding out, which he was advised of. From what I understand, he was out of town on business, wasn't able to come back in and complete it. He also has a lot of confusion on that, so I did speak with him this afternoon and gave him some suggestions to go speak directly to zoning after today. So this is just some of the issues that need to be done for the flexibility to be accepted for the DRC to hear. So the first step for him is getting an approved flexibility in FLS. Once it's approved, which needs to be heard first, then he can move on with the permit process. So it is some steps for him. This is just the screenshot that it was voided February 2nd of 2026. So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing a permit. We are requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 29th, 2026 with the completion of permit three months from issuance of the permit. I am willing to budge on that date because I know realistically now that he's here and I've spoken to him today, that's not really feasible for him. So I'm going to let him come up and speak his piece on what timeframe he believes he needs realistically to get the FLS actually completed, to be heard, to then move on to the next step.

Thank you. Sir? Before you begin, I have a question to ask you that I should have asked you before our inspector presented. Do you admit or deny the violation? I'm sorry, what? Do you admit or deny the violation?

The violation of constructing a shed, I admit.

All right. Thank you. All right. Very good. Would you like to tell us?

Well, after talking to Cat, I realized the FLS needs to get applied for and then approved with certain meeting dates. And knowing that the dates are only held on a certain time, I'm going to need until probably the end of August to complete the FLS and to get the zoning permits. So that's all I ask, that I can have it extended until the end of August.

so you plan to move forward i plan on moving forward yes i feel confident in all this now all right does the board have any questions what's the flexibility that we're taking over here i don't want to speak too much on it but the shed is in a setback so he needs to get that approved to move forward with the permit so I don't object to a continuance until August to allow him ample time to get that FLS in and approved, and then we can move forward from there, and I'll do another continuance if need be to allow him time for the permit.

Any other questions? May I have the first motion, please?

Is this a continuance that we're going for, or what?

No, we're going to follow standard procedure. First, we need to do the first motion declaring violation, then decide on the second motion, whatever it is going to be.

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 and i have a second motion please i moved to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations honored before august 26 2026. if the respondent does not comply by that date the board may order a fine of 150 dollars per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist the fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lane is filed the city is authorized to foreclose collect or settle such length

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, sir. Check to make sure everybody's mic is on. There we go. All right.

We'll continue.

next on our agenda is item 3.2 continued from february 25th and march 25th case 29-26 find respondents connor petron at 3804 brigadoon circle in violation of code for permits and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met is there anyone here to speak on that case sir please come forward and stage tonight

Connor J. Petron, 3804, where you're doing the circle.

Thank you, sir. And you're the owner of the property? Correct. Very good. Sir, do you admit or deny the violation? I admit. All right. Excellent. All right. Can I get a first motion, please?

I move to finally respond in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case.

I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Sir, if you'd like to have a seat, we'll hear from the inspector and then call you back up.

Hello again. I'm Inspector Kat Reese of the City of Clearwater. This is for case 29-26 at 3804 Brigadoon Circle. This is going to be for one violation, section 4-203.A.1, specifically for a permit needed for the patio enclosure, much like many of the other cases. First notice went out April 23rd of 2025 with the final being December 19th of 2025. It had multiple certified males signed both for May of 2025 and for December. This is just the aerial view of Brigadoon and he is in the inner circle of the property. This is notice posted to the property and this is for the patio enclosure that was built. Compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing out said permit. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 29th, 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. So I have been in contact with Mr. Patrick as well. Um, I did extend him, uh, a few times actually, because there are steps that each homeowner has realized they need a survey to move forward the HOA agreements. I've worked with them. Unfortunately, the contractor who was helping out many of the homeowners in Brigadoon has passed away. So I did extend a lot of Brigadoon out for that reason. Um, unfortunately we do have to move on with the cases, so we don't have super old cases in the future. Um, so Connor has reached out to me last week. He was having issues with contractors. although we don't suggest contractors or recommend any. I did give him the contractor information for anyone who has successfully gotten the patios completed to give him some aid. So that's where we're at today.

Excellent. Inspector, just a moment. Oh, sorry. I have a question, yes. The patio is a finish is the enclosure. How long has it been that way?

It's been there for about 20 years or if not more, but that is unfortunately once a violation is found, that violation is continues to exist each day. So everyone does have to come in compliance. It is a very unfortunate circumstance that everyone has in that property. And I've, I've been working with everyone. on their own separate timelines because everybody's life looks a little different. Once communication stops or they tell me they're going to do something and they don't reach back out, I move on. That's just the way I work.

How did you find out about this?

It was complaint driven from one of the residents in the property. She has some concerns of property value going down based off of you know, the condition of the property. So I see both sides. Not that it doesn't matter what I see. The violation's there and that's just the fact of the matter.

Okay, thank you. What's the date of that complaint?

The original complaint came in April of 2025. So we're going on over a year with the violations. And I'm still working with people who have been in communication, have shown me some progress of some kind. Thank you.

There's always problems with brigadier. It seems like it goes on forever.

There's going to be quite a few in the near future. Okay.

Is this just like a neighborhood and it's a townhouse community.

So none of them can pull their own permits because it's townhouse community. They have an HOA. Uh, the issue that we're coming across is, um, the patios are going past their property line. So that's why we had to generate, we had to get with the HOA attorney. The city agreed to this agreement form that's being submitted so that they can move along. A lot of them were banking on using that contractor who has sadly passed.

And was it just like, did they go and build their own patios or they moved into these houses where these patios had been built and nobody knew?

Most of them bought the property with the patio already there. But that's the code world. I'm just trying to figure out.

And you mentioned there seems to be a lot of them that have these patios and just didn't know. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Good. Thank you.

But the good news is once everybody comes in compliance there, the violations have been found and taken care of so everyone can move on with their lives.

Mr. Petra? Would you like to share with us today?

Well, I was one of the ones who actually paid to have my concrete patio and screen enclosure built. I don't know. I remember the contractor name, but I do have the invoice on my phone. It was like Sunshine or something contractor over in Tampa. They did a lot of the units in Brigadoon, and they didn't pull a permit for anything that they constructed. They told us. that they did and they did so that's where we're while we're here 20 years later because we all thought it was all permitted everything good and then one complaint by a neighbor opens up a huge can of worms so yeah that's what we're did you ask did you ask to say the permit I did not at the time. 20 years ago, I was a little bit younger. Boris, I don't think he asked to see the permit either. Boris is the contractor slash handyman who was helping everybody get the permits. And he was there. when I was there, so he paid as well at that time to get it installed for his unit, and I don't think he asked for the permit either, just believe them.

Yeah, in the future, we're paid to ask. For sure, yeah, live and learn, yes. I'm sorry.

But that's really the problem that I've found is, since worse has passed, that I'm having trouble finding a contractor who wants to do this or knows the steps to do this. I talked with a guy yesterday who said, oh, you know, you can pull your own permit. Just go down to the permitting office. I went there this morning, and they told me no. And so I'm just looking for a contractor. I don't know if I, you know, a month should be enough time, but I don't know. All right.

Board? How much time do you need?

I'm really not sure. I mean, I haven't gotten calls back from a few. Like I said, I probably have one guy. Maybe two months would be, I think, that would be reasonable to get everything done.

And if we would have extra time, would you stay in communications with the inspector? Yes, definitely. I have no problem if we go with August 29th.

I thought we were bringing it up to July 29th.

Inspector Reese, what do you think about July 29th?

I have no objection. If I see a permit in the system and it's I will watch it and make sure it continues to move forward to being an issued permit, and then hopefully we don't have to come back here.

Can I just ask a question? Why can't he pull his own permit? Is it because it's a town hall?

It's an HOA community, so they cannot pull owner-builders there.

And he needs a contractor to pull the... That is correct.

Yes.

Thanks.

Any other questions? So you're okay with July 29th?

I think that'll be enough. I'm going to work hard on it and not stay in communication. Yes. Okay.

All right. Now I have a motion place. I moved to find the respondent violation of the code is referred to in this application in the case. Maybe we already did this. Sorry. So the second motion, I moved to enter an order requiring the respondents to correct the violations on or before July 29th, 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.

Chair Greg Musil. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, sir. Next on our agenda, case 3.3 has been withdrawn. Number 3.4, continued from March 25th, 2026, case 57-26, finance finance Martinez assets LLC at 1533 Drew 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.

I'm Inspector Kat Rees. This is going to be at 1533 Jew Street for case number 57-26. It's going to be for one violation for permits required, specifically for permits for the fence installed on the property. It also was installed facing the wrong way. There's multiple violations, the notices of violations sent to the property, first one being December 11th of 2024, the final December 9th of 2025. I also posted on the property December 9th of 2025. This is going to be right along Drew Street, just east of Highland. That's what it used to look like back in 2021. This is the property pretty much today. There is a structure being built there, so it is difficult today to see the fence that I'm talking about. So this fence right here is the fence in violation. And this was the original inspector's pictures when the fence was brand new. And this is a picture of it today. So it's very difficult because there's high weeds in the back. It's a construction site. So that's the picture I have asked today. Compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 29, 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.

And the fence is facing the wrong way, you say? That is correct. Okay.

And you're sure it's that property and not the other properties?

Yes, because at the same time, the property owner owns 1537 Dew Street, which is right next to it. Oh, okay. And the fence on that property, he came in compliance with that, but for some reason is ignoring the new build. Okay.

If I'm not mistaken, the code regarding fence is that it's got to be the good side out.

That is correct.

Okay. All right.

Do the images that you presented there have the dates, timestamps?

Yes. So let me go back. This was from today. I know you can't see. It's right in the middle. I saw that one. Yeah. These were Inspector Espinoza's pictures. I don't know why they don't have photos, but these were uploaded into Acela on her inspection date, which was April.

Of what year?

We don't know exactly.

I'm sorry, it was December 11th of 2024.

I'm familiar with this one. It's right around the corner from me.

Okay.

May I have any other questions from the board? May I have a first motion, please?

Mr. Chairman, I move to find a responding violation of the code as referred to in this case.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations only before June 29, 2026, if the respondent does not comply by that date. The Board made an order of 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 land is filed, this is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such land.

May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Our next case on our agenda 3.5 has been withdrawn. 3.6 continued from March 25th, 2026, case 59-26. Fine respondents Kathy Barrow at 1910 Union Street in violation of code for permits and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

All right. Inspector Cat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is going to be for 1910 Union Street, case number 59-26. I apologize. That was a typo. Permits. This is going to be for one violation for permits required, specifically for one shed that is partially constructed and one outdoor kitchen slash bar with electrical attached to it. First notice went out September 18th of 2025. The final was October 28th of 2025. I had certified mail signed on October 2nd of 2025. This is going to be on Union Street, which is just west of Hercules. So this is the kitchen bar structure that is in the back of the property, which is facing the waterfront. So I believe there are some rules to that, but nonetheless, it's there. This is the partially constructed shed or accessory structure that's being built there. I know General Code presented this case to you as well, this property for the pool and the condition of the property. So I believe it's already in violation. Compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit with inspections. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 29th and completion of the permit six months from the 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.

Did we ask anyone to present for this case?

I did. Okay. Yeah. Inspector Reese, have you been in touch with the owner?

No. I've never had contact. I believe that the property owner is not available, I believe, due to medical reasons. Her son is living on the property. And he has an unfortunate lifestyle, so I've never been able to reach him. And since my violation has started, there was also a structural fire on the property, so there's also an unsafe case there. I'm not sure if Mr. Larson has had any contact with anybody there, but I personally have never.

When you say Mr. Larson, you're talking about? Yes, Inspector Larson. Inspector Larson. And he's got the fire case? Yes. Or the other case? Okay.

It's an active, unsafe case at this time.

Okay. Board, do you have any questions? All right. We have a first motion, please.

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, yes. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The 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 29th, 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. Thank you, Inspector Reece. Number 3.7 on our agenda, as continued from March 25th, case 60-26, find respondents Tyjuan Hall Sr., Judy Hall, Sen Thongdara, and Sika Thongdara at 707 Lake Drive 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? No? Inspector Reece, you have the floor.

Hey, I'm Inspector Cat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is going to be for 707 South Lake Drive, case number 60-26. This is going to be for one violation for permits required. This is specifically for the shed installed on the property. This is also an old case that I started over. So my first issuance of notice of violation was March 18th of 2025. The final was June 16th of 2025. Certified mail was May 30th of 2025. This is to be on Lake Drive, which is just south of Turner and Yeah, no. What is that, Lake Drive? So, sorry. A weird spot. Okay, so it's just north of Druitt Road. So this is the Google photo, and this is from back in 2019, where there's the arrow pointing. There's no shed there at that time. Thank you for the zoom. Yeah, you're welcome. And in 2023, you can now see it, which I believe I have to zoom, so you see the structure there in the back.

Wow.

This is an updated photo that was taken July 9th of 2025. This shows the structure is still there. I did have an updated photo from today. It is there. I forgot to upload it. Compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before, I apologize for that date, 6-29-2026, and completion of the permit six months from the issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. I have been in contact with Mr. Hall. I spoke with him the last time prior to the continuance and instructed him on what he needed to do. He called me last week, advised me that he has decided he's going to start taking the shed down. It would be more costly to him to get it permitted, which was fine. I told him, just make sure you call me before today. So I can come and take a picture, even if it's not totally completed, just starting it, I can do a continuance. When I went to the property today, the shed is still up in the same place and no work was done. I've had no further communication from him.

Okay. And you send it today?

Yes. Okay. Yeah, I just forgot to upload the picture.

I'm assuming this shed is larger than a 10 by 10.

It is.

Which is kind of the make break point, is it not?

It is larger than 10 by 10, and it was constructed on the property, so it does need engineer plans to get permitted. That's why he opted to just take it down. And I told him, yeah, you can get a prefab. It's cheaper that way, but he didn't do anything he said he was going to do.

Okay. I noticed on this.

That was a typo. The 425? It's actually 629 of 2026. 629, okay.

All right. Board, do you have any questions?

The Google picture, are you the original inspector?

No.

When did the original?

I started the case over, so that is my original dates. I don't, I... so the original case is closed up yes yes so i opened back up when i first started i realized halfway through me taking over that it's probably more beneficial to do that um so that way i'm not getting confused with other inspectors things so But we're almost done with all that now.

So on the photograph showing the violation being there, not being there, how do we know it's 2019 on Google?

Oh, sure. On the current slide. So in the original photo right here, it shows February 2029. I'm moving to see the further date. So my next one, this is just a zoom in of that same photo. This one here shows May of 2023, and then the structure is there.

And that was generated by Google?

Yes.

Just for the sake of clarity, you originally said that the first photo was from when?

February of 2019. 19. Did I say something? I heard 29. I've had way too much coffee today. We'll make sure we're squeaky clean here.

So it's been there at least three years.

Yes, yes. It's not in the greatest condition. Him taking it down is probably the best way so he can move forward with something that he would really like there. He can do it. He just needs to get a permit.

Good.

Any other questions from the board? Prefabs, you don't need a permit.

As you don't need engineer plans, it does need to be permitted if it's over 100 square feet.

Okay. Over 100 square feet. Okay.

Things might change.

Any other questions? 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. I have a second motion, please.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on the before June 29th. 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.

I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Inspector Reese, one last question on this one.

Yes.

Why four names? Are there that many names on the owners?

That's every owner of that property.

Well, okay. Just out of curiosity. All right. Moving on. Number 3.8 on our agenda. Continued from March 25, 2026, case 61-26. Find respondents Carlos Suave. and Michael Roy at 1303 Sunset Drive in violation of code for permits. An issued order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Gentlemen, please step forward. Please state your name and address. Hello.

Michael Roy, R-O-Y, 1303 Sunset Drive, Clearwater.

Thank you, sir. Sir, do you admit or deny the violation on the case? No. I'm sorry?

No.

You deny the violation?

No. It's a violation.

You're admitting the violators? Yes.

When you said it that way, I got you.

I just want to understand. I'm sorry. When you said it that way. I get you. If you want to have a seat, we'll hear from the inspector. Sir, you're also here to speak on this case. Would you step forward and give us your name and relation to the property or involvement?

Tom Bellini at 308 Engelman.

And I'm the neighbor. Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. We're going to hear from the inspector, then we'll hear from you gentlemen. Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

All right. I'm Inspector Kat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is going to be for 1303 Sunset Drive, case number 61-26. This is going to be for one violations for permits required for the structure constructed to the rear of the primary residence, which is attached to the primary residence. First notice was sent out June 2nd of 2025. The final was July 25th of 2025, posted to the property July 25th of 2025. This is going to be just west of North Osceola, pretty close to the water. And this is the structure that requires a permit. This is just another angle. this is the time stamp is on the bottom here which looks a little different from what i used today just i'm sorry could you could you use your cursor and show us right here uh this was april 4th of 2025 that i took the pictures that's why i moved my time stamp to what i was used to using i'm i'm thinking in terms of where which structure because so this structure here with the green top is the one that we're here for today so i'll show you a better photo which is right here this is the side view i got you it's all of this which is attached to the primary structure thank you I have been in contact with the complainant as well as Mr. Roy. Again, I try to work with everybody on let's take one step at a time. Get a survey. We'll move from there. Our next step was the engineer plans. Unfortunately, we fell short with the engineer plans. So that is why I had to continue, especially if it's people that feel that they're being affected by the violation. I have to service both sides of the parties. So this is just a close-up of that property. There's a lot of photos for this one because each time I went back to see what the progress, you know, if any progress was made, you know, because Mr. Roy has, he needs, in order for him to get this permitted or to get an engineer, he needed to fix a few things that the engineer suggested get fixed so it can be up to code. An engineer is not going to stamp something if he knows that's not up to par. But I do need to move forward because I gave him quite some time. And I have to, again, service both parties in the situation. So he is getting it repaired so that way it could get permitted. So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 29, 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. Mr. Roy? What would you like to tell us about all this? Hello. Hi.

This is my first time dealing with something like this, and it's been a nightmare. I'm sure. First of all, we had a new roof put on in 2011. And we thought this was part of the overhang after going through some personal issues. The roofer who was no longer in business said that, oh, we will just work it into the existing permit with this addition back there. So we thought this was all done. And then when Kat came up and said this and pointed it out, it threw me back. I was like, what? It's not permitted? And she went back and checked the microfiche. And so I said, oh, boy. So I started going through. And I went down to code enforcement. And they gave me a list of five names. And one of them said they had to do small jobs. So I said, well, let me work with this list. And I just have not had any luck with this list. There's some that you can just call, and you can't leave a message. There's some that you only take a text from, and some that's just an answer. And one said this was too small of a project. And I was just like, well, I can't get any engineers to take this up. But I found a handyman that said he knew one of the engineers. My handyman took pictures and he said, the engineer is real busy, but he says you need to do this and that. I said, well, that doesn't sound too unreasonable. I took out four by fours and put in four by sixes and new concrete pads and all these things trying to get ahead of the thing. apply for a permit until I had the survey which I had but then I couldn't without the engineering plans and I kept calling and leaving messages and emails and people just aren't getting back and you're saying they're just too busy and it's just ridiculous and you got up to where I thought I had an engineer, but I got duped on that. He wasn't an engineer. And so when I got up into February, I'm like, man, what's going on? And then one of the men on the list finally got back to me, and I sent him pictures of the drop boxes. He didn't want to come out. and look at it himself. And he said, well, I'll look at it this weekend. And then he called me Monday. So I called him Monday. He didn't do it. So he says, oh, call me tomorrow at 9. Call him at 9. He says, oh, call me back at 9.30. And then crickets again. So it's just been real frustrating on my part. So I just started going through the book. and talking to people. I didn't know it was civil engineering I could do that. But I did that. And everybody thought it was too small a project, too small. And then finally somebody said, OK. And this is a group in Tampa, Belts Engineering. And they said, and this was the day before Easter. And they said, well, we could take care of that. So have you worked with City of Clearwater before? And they said, yes. I said, OK. Good. So the week after, the guy comes out, takes pictures. He's not an engineer, but he said, looks like you might need some strapping or something, but everything else seems to be OK. I said, good. I signed the contract the next day. He told me two to four weeks. After calling, he said, hey, what's going on? Give me an update. And he's like, oh, we're just real busy. He told me two to four weeks. So May 1st, he goes, oh, yes, I forgot. We've had some staff changes and this and that. I said, well, I have a code board meeting, and I'd like to be able to tell them that I'm applying for the permit. He says, OK. So finally, I get a letter. He says, well, this is what we've done so far. Do you want to show them that? which is just like preliminary drawings. We haven't done the engineering yet. And the gentleman that came out and took the photos in March is no longer there. He said, I have to come back. And I've got a schedule, hopefully for tomorrow, to come out and take new pictures. He said, as soon as he gets the new pictures, they can do the new engineering. So I paid up front. for all of this, and I'm just, it's kind of like out of my hands. I'm waiting for them to give me the engineering drawings. I got the survey, and I'm just waiting on that. And once I get that, in which I need to figure out what I need to do to bring it up to compliance, because I want to keep the overhead, then I'll pay my handyman to do the work, and hopefully I won't be bothering you all anymore. That's where I am right now. So it's Belts Engineering in Tampa. Right. They seem to be sort of keeping in touch more and more now. Got you. So that's it.

Do you plan to pull the permits yourself or her?

I'm paying them to do everything because I don't know anything about it. So they're going to pull the permits for you? They're doing everything. I told them I don't mind. Got you. You guys know how to do the permits. So you're supposed to do all that and have a copy of the contract and everything here. But I really have an issue with the list of people. It was nice to have a list, but if no one's going to respond, it's just really weird, you know. All of us are that age. We're like, you know, you call, somebody calls you, you at least call back and go, we're too busy, we can't do it. Fine, great. You know, it's just crazy. And there's a lot of other people that I've talked about that have just moved out of Clearwater. They're like, it's permits. It's hard to get people to do the work. It's hard for people to get the permits. They moved to Brooksville. They moved to Virginia. And I was like, I don't want to move. I used to work for City of Clearwater. I like it here. But this is my first time having to deal with permits. And this is just crazy. And, you know, Kat's been great keeping up with me. helping me, and I can see the frustration. As time stepped by, I'm like, oh, crap, this is, you know, six months.

Got you. So thank you. Do you think that, sir, do you think that you can get that permit within the next 30 days or so?

I believe so, because I got a letter from the engineer. He said, we moved you to the top of the queue. Guys should be out tomorrow. If not tomorrow, it'll be June 3rd at 9.30. Take photos, give it to the engineer. They'll do it all up and submit it. So as soon as they submit it and I know what kind of work I do need to do any work, if I need to do it, I'll have it done. I'm not trying to not do it. It's just crazy how long it's taken to apologize for that. Understood.

Mr. Roy, you have a signed contract now with somebody?

Yes, sir.

And you will stay in contact with inspectors?

Yes. She's been great. I've been able to keep in touch with someone as soon as I get something. Like, hey, I got this, you know. I've had several violations and we've taken care of them. I think we've been, this is the first time where it's just really, because of the drawings, engineer drawings, it's kind of been out of my hands to find somebody to do such a small project. It's what's been the hold up.

Understood.

Board, do you have any other questions for Mr. Roy? Don't forget the homeowner. Right.

OK. Thank you, Mr. Roy.

I do have a question. I don't know if you can answer it, Pat. You can answer it. Is the roof have an approved permit? Because you said you got the roof replaced, and you thought that that included the structure itself.

Um, so yes, the roof itself was permitted. I did check the microfilm, but what he stated, he thought that was part of it was in fact not.

So what he's actually needs to get permitted is just the structure underneath. That's right. Okay.

But the, uh, the roof would be part of that. Would it not part of that structure because it was added along with that structure, but not under the, uh, under the plans, under the, uh, roof permit.

Yes, it was not part of that roof permit.

Okay, so I think that answers the question that the roof has got to be part of this engineered set of drawings for this permit. Correct. If I'm thinking correctly. I don't want Mr. Roy to get caught short here because if the roof was installed on an unpermitted structure, it might be worth looking at whether that when the roof will pull the permit, did it include this additional structure, and was that inspected and passed? And if not, then there is unpermitted roof. Right.

No, the roof was definitely permitted on the primary structure. This part, the addition to it, was not part of that, though. so then that i i went we had to go through the vault to go get you know to get that answer beforehand so it was confirmed that it was not part of that original roofing permit that has passed inspections so it's that was for the roof and what was on those plans you know on those drawings for the roofing permit not for the addition

Right. The point of clarification that I think we're trying to make is that in your engineering work, it would be incumbent to make sure the roof, they're looking at the roof and that it is part of whatever they're doing so that you don't get, am I thinking correctly, just for clarification?

I think the roof passed whatever inspection, so the roof technically doesn't need engineered drawings per this.

You place an asphalt roof and put a penalty on it.

Right.

Okay.

Okay. Good. So it's just underneath.

So it's just from this point here where you see this wood and then all down this way. Right. This whole structure.

That I understand. I just, for the point of clarification, I didn't want us to end up back here with a situation where there's a problem with the roof because it's the roof on the subject addition that we're discussing here so that, you know, his engineer takes care of everything that they need to. Gotcha. That's comprehensive and covers everything that concerns you. Yes, sir.

All right. The roofers initially told you the shed roof would be included.

It was included. But it wasn't permitted. It was.

The 8 foot by 20 foot extension we came up with because we had trees over the house and branches were falling, big branches, and we were afraid. And I wasn't there. I was in the hospital with my dad in Tampa General. But my wife started telling the guy, yeah, this just fell down. And the roofing guy said, oh, we can fix it. you should have that extension put on and I have some extra green metal roofing we can put on there. And since I can work that into the existing permit, was her understanding. That's my point.

It wasn't, it actually wasn't included.

In there, yes, right.

something here i think you said wasn't and i think you're understanding that it was and i want to clarify this because at the end of the day i don't want you to be caught short and have a product that's not fully complete fully permitted so it was we were you know we were in a bad situation and the guy said how to work this into the existing permit not knowing exactly what that meant

We just know they did a good job and it was done. And we've had an inspection by Citizens Insurance back in 2023. Inspector came out, did the whole house inside out, passed everything, took pictures of the roof, said to look at the overhang extension. No complaints. He went up on top of it, looked at it. So we didn't think it was a safety issue. So until it was brought up that it didn't have a permit, that's what we saw.

I have a question. So I know the roof has an inspection and it's good to go. However, with the structure being part of the roof, with the work being done and removed, would it not impact the integrity of the roof and maybe we do need a permit just in case it does?

I'm not an engineer. I can't speak to that. I will pass your concern on to Belt Engineering. but I guess until they take new pictures and look at it and come up with what they, because he says he knows what to do to bring it up to compliance. I don't know if that's part of what it will be.

I just want to make sure that it doesn't, that the roof now is an issue because you're working on the bottom structure and then it does mess, it impacts the integrity of the roof itself. We're back in the same predicament of having to have a permit for the roof.

So that's the reason for the engineer plans. With it being attached to the primary structure and the engineer comes out there, he's putting his name and his license on the line, he or she, that this is a safe structure and the integrity is going to hold. So I would like to leave that to the engineers when he submits the drawings and the plans.

All right. Very good. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Sir, you have something you'd like to say? Yes.

The structure was there before they put on the new roof. So the violation is the structure, not the roof.

Thank you.

Number two, CAT has given them I put the time zone, I don't recall, 60 days to get a permit for an architect to make up plans. 60 days went by, CAT came back, extended their time. They did nothing. You've seen the pictures on how that looks. None of you would like to live right next to that. So on the next pass, she tagged it, redlined it, You think that would stop and they would follow through on trying to get a permit? The homeowner can pull a permit, but you need plans and not to be able to get an architect. I just had a extension, a garage put on my son's house. They're out there, but you got to pay $5,000. So the excuse of you can't find one, I don't know. Did he show you the engineer that he hired to do the job? But when the county red tagged it, they built another structure and attached it to that structure that doesn't have a permit. So in defiance, they didn't give it them. They just built it, another structure, no permit. So where do I benefit? We're looking out for both parties, but it seems like the county is looking more for them. Kat did a great job. I can't say nothing bad. She was the only inspector, and she was not the first one, but she was the only one that really cared to correct the problem. So to hire a handyman that's not licensed to do that kind of repair, how can you repair something that's not approved by an architect or engineer? This has been going on way past a year. They built the neck structure attached to that. with fencing. Fencing, by the law of the building code, is not approved. It has to be plywood, half inch CDX, whatever you want to use. But fencing is not an approved structural material. If we get a hurricane and there's power there, permit for power again if you look at the picture who would want to live next to that and like i said cat this is going on way past a year and whatever cat says to them they agree and then they blow her away

What is your relationship to Mr. Roy? I'm sorry? What is your relationship to Mr. Roy? There is none. I mean, are you a neighbor?

Yes. How close do you live to him? Seven feet. Okay. My backyard is two foot wide. I got big, the windows on the side of my house, and you just look at this every day. The value of my house... is getting worse and worse because of this. And for them to build another structure when the property or the permanent structure is complete in defiance, and to me, they didn't give a damn. They're just going to do what they wanted to. He's got 29 violations against them. They just were forced to take down a rotten fence. They used to have that purple thing. That's a sheet. But how can you build? I've been in commercial construction 60 years. There's not too much I don't know about. And we do $1 million to 20 million. We're doing the ad for it now. So for him to say he can't find it, that's not an excuse. His whole thing to Kat was, well, I don't have the money. I don't have the money. Well, they took us to small claims court over a tree. They lost. They took us back to small claims court. They lost. They took my neighbor to small claims court. Well, she countered whatever she did, and they lost. They lost $8,000. so for you not to see he has the paperwork i can tell you i have the paperwork but there's no proof that he has the paperwork and like and like i said this this thing they're going on what i lived there for eight years there used to be another structure on on the side cat got them to take down that there was another structure on the other side of the house a cardboard luckily kat has been in charge she got them to take that down so excuses over a year it's time to say if they were going to do something and pull a permit it would have been done By now. But show us something in good faith.

All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. It's our job to, you know, to take the process forward.

Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you, sir.

All right. Did we do a first motion on this? Does anybody?

Are you aware of all the violations and the permit you're requesting is for all those violations?

Yes, but like I explained to both parties, today we're here to speak about this violation. Has he come in compliance with previous violations? Yes, but the focus is on this violation for the structure and the structure alone. Everything else is irrelevant today.

I think center structure is what you're talking about. That's correct. All right.

Mr. Roy, you had something else you wanted to say? Briefly, please.

Okay.

I have a copy, if you want, of the engineering. I can give that to you if that would help you.

Anybody care to see that, or are you ready to move forward?

I have an extra copy. I can give it to you.

Cat, have you seen it? You've seen the contract, Cat? Okay.

Let's get it on the record then.

Oh, we'll be able to see it. Okay.

So that's your contract with Belt Engineering? Yes. All right.

Fair enough. I paid the money for that, and I can give you that. All right.

First of all, anything pertinent you'd care to add? Anything pertinent you'd care to add?

Oh, okay. I'm going to do like Cat and just keep it to the overhang. A lot of what he said was not true, but I'm not going to go with that. If you need it, I'll just read you what the engineer said to me yesterday. We are busy and are working diligently to complete your project now that it has come into our queue. It shouldn't take long now to complete it. Considering that it's been so long since the initial inspection, we need to come back out and collect some more field data and ensure that your plans accurately represent the built condition of the structure. Okay. And meet compliance.

Very good. Thank you, sir. It is in motion. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Madam Chairman, did we do a first motion on this case?

I don't think so. No.

All right. May I have a first motion, please? Yes.

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

I'll second it.

All right. May I have 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 29th. Yeah. 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 fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, elect, or settle such liens.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Inspector Reeves. Next on our agenda, number 3.9, continued from March 25th, 2026, case 62-26. Spying respondents Petrello, Philip, Benjamin, Trustee, and BG Land Trust at 202 North Glenwood Avenue in violation of code for permits. An issued order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Hey, I'm Inspector Pat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is for 202 North Glenwood Avenue. This is for case 62-26. It's going to be for one violation, permits required, specifically for the white vinyl fence installed on the property. First notice, this is an old case as well, was said July 20th of 2023. The final was sent December 17th of 2025. Certified mail was signed as July 27th of 2023. I've also posted on the property for good measure since that green card was signed so long ago. So this was the property, July of 2019, as you can see here, right down here. And this is a, uh, my inspection photo that I took December of 2025. That shows the fence on the property. It looks very nice. Just needs to permit. Um, so yes. So the, I, I apologize. I was going to highlight them, but right here, uh, yes bcp 2023 090523 is a voided permit for the white vinyl fence so that is why we're here today they don't have a completed permit um so this here is just uh again here's the permit itself and the void So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit with inspections. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 29, 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.

So they, I have questions, so they obtained a permit and the permit was voided?

That is correct because they did not follow through with inspections. So the permit expires or it may have been voided for another reason. I honestly didn't look into as to why this time. I apologize. But usually if I didn't attach like a void letter, that is because it just voided out over time. It's been just sitting so long.

So we don't know who pulled the permit, whether it was the homeowner or a contractor?

I would know that if I could get in a sellout.

Well, that's okay. It's not that important. It's just a bit of a mystery.

So it does show the contact up here, which is Hugh Hemley. That is not the property owner, so I would imagine it was a contractor.

Okay.

All right.

Is there a reason we haven't heard of this before, three years later or so?

I started it. I don't know. I couldn't answer that. Everything I took over was just a list on a piece of paper and going through Acela and taking over the cases as I was going down the list. Congratulations.

Any other questions?

Can I have a first declaration or first motion, please?

I move to find respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit of 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 violations on or before June 29th. 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 select or settle such lien.

May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Very good, John. Thank you, Inspector. You've been baptized. Moving on, on our agenda number 3.10, continued from March 25th, 2026, case 63-26, find respondents Petrillo, Philip Benjamin Trust, and BG Land Trust at 202 North Glenwood Avenue in violation of code for permits, and issue an order with a compliance deadline and find if compliance is not met. Same address, huh?

Thank you. Yes. So again, Inspector Kat Rees, this is also going to be for 202 North Glenwood Avenue for case number 63-26. This is going to be for one violation for permits required specifically for the windows and doors installed. It did have a permit. It just was voided as well. So we'll get into that. Our first notice violation was sent July 20th of 2023. Final December 8th of 2025. Posted certified mail was signed July 27th of 2023. This is the property. Same one. same household this is the windows of july of 2019 on the property so let's just take a look at that that photo and this is the photos for february of 2025. that's that all the windows are just it is all of the um the windows based off of the uh the permit that was applied for okay So again, so this is the permit right here. I believe it's this one. You can see with my glasses on. Yeah. So it's, I'll show, this was a list of the property, everything on the property. I'll show you the next slide so you can read better. So here is BCP 2023-090525. And this is a voided permit. Um, as of September 19th of 2023. it does show it was voided it was just awaiting plans and it just went stale so that is why they were avoided So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit, requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before June 29, 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.

All right. Thank you. Board, do you have any questions? I have a question. Why is this separate? Just for my own sake of curiosity, why is this a separate case from that?

Offense has to be its own permit.

Okay.

So each violation would be on its own stop work order after the fact. So that way, if they do come in compliance with one, you're able to continue on with the other one that they did not.

Makes sense to me. Any other questions from the board? May I have a first motion, please? I do.

Was it the same contractor? Just out of curiosity. Yes.

Thank you.

That's interesting. All right.

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.

May I have a second? Motion carries. I have a second motion, please.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before June 29th, 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. For Madam Secretary's request, our next case, she has asked for a motion to continue this case until, this says 6-24, but we've been using a date of 6-29. Does that mean anything or no?

No, you've just been using that for compliance.

Okay, that's what I thought. I just wanted to be clear. All right. Can I have a motion to continue this case, please?

I'm to find the respondent in violation of the. No, no, no.

Let me stop you. This is we're not looking for a declaration of violation. What we're looking to do is we're going to she's requested that we postpone this and move it to our next meeting. And so somebody is going to have to make up a motion to do that.

I make a motion to move it to June 24th. We have a second.

Second. All in favor. All right. Motion carries. We're going to do the same thing on the next case. I would like a motion to continue case 65-26 until June 24th, please.

I make a motion to move this case to June 24th.

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Item 3.13 on our agenda has been withdrawn. Item 3.14, continued from April 22nd, 2026, case 80-26, find respondents Andres Perez and Zoila Perez at 2021 North Betty Lane 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?

Chair, my apologies. This case as well will be continued to the June meeting. I need to schedule an interpreter, or translator rather, for the respondent for this case. So it's being continued. All right.

May I have a motion to continue this case?

I make a motion to continue this case to June 24th.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Moving on, number 3.15 on our agenda, case 93-26, find respondents Adam and Dana McGrady at 104 North Meteor Avenue in violation of code for parking lot services and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? No? Inspector Suddath, you have the floor.

This is for case 93-26 at 104 North Meteor Avenue. There is one violation here. Code section 3-1502K4 for parking lot surfaces. Notice the violation was sent on November 24th of 2025 with the compliance date of December 24th of 2025. I did not receive the green card, but the property was posted on 331-2026. This was a complaint came in that the neighbors stated that every time they pull in the driveway, it vibrates the ground and makes a loud noise. So there's a picture of the driveway back in November. This was the posting because they did not receive the green card. This is a posting for today's hearing. This was the driveway the day that I posted for the hearing on May 14th. And then this was the driveway this morning. Compliance can be met for the driveway by repairing and or replacing the cracked and heaped driveway. Requesting compliance on or before June 27th of 2026 or a fine of $150 per day per violation of the compliance is not met.

Thank you. Have you spoken with the owner of the property?

In the beginning, I did. Last year, he told me that he was going through a divorce and that he really couldn't afford to do anything. So I extended him two months to do what he needed to do. Then he reached out to me again and said that he was going to be contacting some contractors and would have a contract signed by the end of the week. I didn't hear anything from him. I did call him two weeks ago. And he told me that he was trying to pull the permit, but he was having problems something about a tree that's on the property. But he did tell me he was going to reach out to the permitting department to see what he could do, and he would call me back, and I have not heard nothing from him. And I told him if I did not, I'd be living for the case. So here we are.

Very good. Thank you. Questions from the board? All right. Then I have a first motion.

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

Do we have a second?

Second.

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

Move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct violations on or before June 27, 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.

We have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next on our agenda, number 3.16, case 94-26, find respondents Brenda and Jessica Smith at 107 South Aurora Avenue in violation of code for residential grass parking and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Sir, would you come forward, please? Sir, could you state your name and address for the record?

Yes, Brandon Smith, 107 South Aurora Avenue.

Thank you, sir. Sir, do you admit or deny the violation?

I'm not too clear on what the violation is. I know grass parking was mentioned of it, but I wasn't too clear on what it was that I violated. There was a vehicle that was parked there for maybe, I'd say, a year or two. I sold it, but that was a few months ago. And there hasn't been a vehicle parked there since, so I'm not sure.

what the actual complaint is they will take that as deny yeah yeah okay very good sir if you want to have a seat we'll hear from the inspector then have you address this again thank you can you speak into the microphone this time maybe it's because i'm short i can't hear you it's certainly not because you're shy

Vicky Sutteth, the City of Clearwater Code Compliance Inspector. This is for case 94-26 at 107 South Aurora. There is one violation there for code section 3-1407A5 for residential grass parking. The notice violation was sent on 10-30 of 2025 with the compliance date of November 20th of 2025. Certified mail receipt was signed and I received it on November 18th of 2025. this picture was taken back last year when the case first came about you can't really see it very good in this picture but there is a car parked right there but behind it is also a boat then there is this picture the car had been removed and now there is just a boat there and there's also something else to the left of it Then on April 9th of 2026, there are now three boats parked in the grass, but no car. And here's a picture of the boat in the car again. And here's a picture of two cars and three boats.

This is, I'm looking at your dates here.

This is last year. These were from when the case first started.

Okay. Thank you. 25.

And then this was on May 11th when I posted the property for today's hearing. There's still three boats parked on the grass. That's the posting for today's hearing. Again, there's three votes. And then this was this morning. There's still three votes sitting in the grass. I did speak to a lady there. I did reach out to them, and I did go over the violation with her. She did say that there was a car there that did not have a tag on it, which I didn't know it because it was backed in. But she did say that it was going to be sold and asked me could I give her some more time, so I did give her another month. I also explained to her that if she's going to have the boats parked on the property, that there has to be a fence there. You can't just have all that parked on the grass, and you would have to have a permanent parking surface. She said that she understood. That was at the end of last year. I have not heard anything since. Compliance can be met for the residential grass parking by having only one parking space on the grass, and it must be parallel and adjacent to the driveway. Requesting compliance on or before June 6th. I know that is a short time, but they've had several, several months to get those stuff off the grass. Or a fine of $150 per day if the compliance is not met.

Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for Inspector, what we call Mr. Smith-Becker? Mr. Smith? I'm sorry.

What would you like to tell us about this? Well, I guess I just had some misunderstanding on, I guess, what the ruling is with it. I saw under, what is it, 0.5? as far as what I violated, that there was a special exception about boats parked parallel but on the offset of the house, which is where my boats are parked, as long as they are under 20 feet. and all of my boats are under 20 feet there's two lasers that are like 10 feet and then one 16 foot sea ray i didn't know that there was a violation for not having a fence hiding it if that be the case i can make that go but i didn't know what part of it i violated other than having the car parked there but i don't park cars there anymore as you saw the photos all right so i'll have i've got a question for the inspector

Specter, can you enlighten us as to what the specific violation is there, the boats?

Is the boats being parked on the grass? It's not that he can't have the boats there, but if you're going to park a boat on the side of your house, it has to be behind a fence and you have to have a permitted parking surface. He doesn't have either, which is what I explained to the woman who said that she was the home property owner. And I spoke to her. I told her if she wanted to have the boats there, she would have to have a permitted parking surface and she would need to put the fence up. And I haven't heard anything since.

Do you have a name of the person you spoke with?

I might. On January 16th at 10.09 AM, I spoke to the property owner, a woman by the name of Jessica, and she asked to have an extension to March. I explained to her that all she had to do was move the car to the driveway. She did not want to do that. She wants to sell it. I told her the most I could do was give her till the end of the month as it was a very easy fix. I also went over the violation with the boats being parked there. And that was the last time I spoke to her was on January 16th. Okay.

January 16th?

And her name was Jessica.

Okay.

And it shows that she is one of the property owners at the address.

Inspector, can any cars be parked on the grass next to the driveway at all? Just one. Still just one. I noticed in one of the pictures there, there was three.

There's been times when there's been more than three parked on the grass.

Party parking. Okay.

Okay. Mr. Smith, does that help you clear up your understanding of the violation? To a very minute degree.

Is the violation about the car or the boats?

It's all a violation because the boats are parked on the grass and there is no offense to hide the fact that the boats are there if you want the boats in the backyard. You can only have one thing parked on the grass parallel adjacent to the driveway, whether it's a boat under 20 feet or a vehicle or a motorcycle or whatever you can only have one okay behind that fence there has to be a surface for the books have a permitted parking surface yeah it can't be just on the grass papers or concrete yeah you do need a permit to get that are there any violations i'm sorry the way that i read it is that it was long as it was a male wing

Well-maintained grass area is what?

That's for the grass parking. If you're going to utilize your one grass parking spot that you get directly next to the driveway, you have to maintain that as grass. You cannot allow it to get worn out.

That doesn't count for the backyard?

No, because if you are going to park the boat in the backyard, you have to have a permitted parking surface, which would mean you would not be tearing up the grass. You can only have concrete, papers, or asphalt.

Which by law is that?

I'm sorry?

Which one is that? 8-5. Yes.

If I may, if you could put that on the overhead there, then you can show the board what you're referring to.

So number six says parking on unpaved area prohibited. No parking, displaying or throwing of vehicles, trailers, and or boats shall be permitted on any grass surface or other unpaved area zone for any use unless specifically authorized.

And what is this document?

This is part of the ordinance.

This is a city ordinance?

Yes, it is.

I think it is.

It is 3-1407 for parking restrictions in residential areas and it is number six. There was just an exception. A6. There's an exception under there. Can we see the exception?

Thank you.

Commercial vehicles during the actual performance of a service at the premises where the vehicle is parked, loading, unloading, or cleaning up vehicles but not including semi-trailers, trucks, or cabs provided such activity is fully completed within 24 hours and provided such activity does not occur at the same location one or two times per month. And emergency vehicles. That's the exception.

Okay. I have a question. Does that answer your question?

Yeah. Do you want to see more of this? Yeah, I'm just reading this last time. Sorry. Well, you want me to move it up? Yeah. That's good. I can't see it. I want to see where it's going. Hold on.

You're good right there.

That's good right there. How's that? OK, you got it.

OK. As of today, are there any violations still in existence?

Yeah, the picture that I showed you of this morning. All three boats are still parked on the grass.

Mr. Smith, have you spoken with the inspector before today about this stuff? No, I haven't. OK. Very good. Does the board have any other questions?

I guess we need to find out, Blake, so you know what you need to do to correct this?

I don't.

It looks like you need to put up a fence and put some kind of... surface down to put your boats on top of.

Concrete or pavers. I would recommend that you speak with the inspector and with the building department as far as what's actually required to get this satisfied. Even for the smaller boats, I would still need...

If you're going to park anything on the ground, you can only have one thing. If you want to keep the boats there, you have to put up a fence and you have to have a permanent parking surface.

And that counts for the backyard, too.

that is only for the backyard that requires a fermented surface okay and again those are those are issues to sort out with the uh i'm sorry let me step on you there if you wanted to to move one of them out directly next to the driveway in the grass you could do that as long as they have current tags on the trailers

So, again, I would suggest you discuss your, you know, get an understanding with the code enforcement officer, talk with the building department, get an understanding of what it is you need to do to get into compliance there.

Okay? All right.

Do we have any other questions?

No. I guess how long do you think it will take you to do that?

To put a fence in, I'm honestly going to sell the votes then. I'm not going to put a favor down. I'd rather sell them and make money. So maybe two months.

Okay.

August.

August.

August 6. Or July.

July.

July.

Inspector, do you have any thoughts about setting a date further down the road other than?

It's entirely up to you guys. I told you what I thought, and they've had since last year. I've spoken to the wife. She knew what needed to be done, and here we are.

OK. And when did this case first start?

The first notice was sent out to them on October 30th of 2025.

So it's been about seven months, seven, eight months, something like that. Nine months.

It's going on about eight months.

Okay. Okay.

I'm okay with extension. I think we should do July and give him two months to propose. That's what he wants to do.

Somebody give me a motion.

I put in a motion to extend this to July.

It's going to be the first.

Initially, we need to do the first violation. I'm sorry. Give me the first violation motion, if you will.

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? May I have a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before July 6th of 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.

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor? passes. Sir, please get with your inspector and the building department. They can get with your inspector and the building department and they'll help you get it resolved. Thank you. All right. We are coming up on an hour and a half of meeting. Does anybody need to take a break or shall we continue?

I'm fine to continue.

You want a break? No? All right. Continue. Are you sure? Somebody flag me if you want to take a break.

We can just actually break. Pardon? It's been determined we can just walk out. We don't have to actually take a break.

Yes, you can leave. If somebody wants to. All right.

Moving on. Number 3.19 on our agenda has been withdrawn. Number 3.20, case 98.

Did I miss one? I did.

I skipped one. All right. Thank you. Maybe I need a break. Agenda item 3.18, case 96-26, fine respondents, Arkham Homes LLC at 1465 San Juan Court in violation of code for exterior surfaces and windows maintenance. An issue and order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector, you have the floor.

Hello again. Vicki Sudduth with the City of Clearwater Code Inspector. This is for case 96-26 for 1465 San Juan Court. There are two violations at this property, Code Section 3-1502, C1 and C3 for door and window maintenance and Code Section 3-1502B for exterior surfaces. The notice of violation was sent on January 15th of 2026 with a compliance date of February 15th, 2026. I did not receive the green card, so the property was posted on March 21st of 2026. I did bring this property already for the overgrowth, which has been taken care of, so just kind of disregard the overgrowth. This is for the exterior surfaces and the broken windows. This is a picture of the soffit falling down, that window behind it. It's kind of hard to see in this picture, but it's broken. There's a lot of peeling paint, vines growing, trees growing out of the eaves. There's a closer up picture of the broken window. The gutters are falling down off the top of the roof and off the wall. This was a posting for, because they didn't receive the green card. And then this was a posting for today's hearing. And then these were taken this morning where the soffit's still falling down, the window's still broke. The vines are still growing and the peeling paint is still everywhere. Compliance can be met for the exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structural and decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, and faded peeling paint. And compliance can be met for the door and windows by replacing all broken windows and removing any boards. Requesting compliance on or before June 27th of 2026 or a fine of $150 per day per violation if compliance is not met.

Might I surmise that this house is unoccupied?

It is not occupied at this time. It's not. I would have brought it a lot sooner, but I did notice, you could have seen it in one of the pictures, there was an extra posting there. It was actually going up for auction in February because the taxes have not been paid on it, and the owner did come in and pay the taxes on the day of the deadline. But I have not had any contact with him. I've called him. I've left several messages, and I've also tried to email him, and I've gotten no response.

Chair Greg Musil No contact whatsoever. All right. Questions from the board? All right. 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.

Chair Greg Musil All in favor? Aye. Chair Greg Musil All opposed? Motion placed.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before June 27, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day for 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.

I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Inspector Casby. Hello there. Our next item, 3.20, case 98-26, find respondents Laura Long at 1786 Murray Avenue in violation of code for fences and walls and exterior storage, an issue in the order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? No? Inspector Kasman, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, Board. Daniel Kasman, the Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is case number 98-26 for 1786 Murray Avenue. There's two violations here for Code Section 3-1502G123 for exterior storage and Code Section 3-808A1-6 for fence maintenance. These are the dates the notice of violation went out with the compliance date. We did get the certified mail-in receipt back. We did have to post the property for today's hearing. This is 1786 Murray. On the left side of the home, and I'll have better photos in the future, there's a fence panel that's fallen over on its face on that side of the home. And on the other side of the home, if you look to the right there, you notice there's some damaged fence with a lot of materials being stored outdoors, a lot of construction materials, buckets, bins. In the front of the home as well, there's a bunch of bins and buckets and a mini fridge being stored outdoors. I have spoken with the owners of the property. It seems like they might be going through some tough times. There's a foreclosure activity happening on the property. There was some other things. There were two destroyed carports, canvas carports in the driveway, which they did remove. That also had items under them, but they didn't finish up with everything else. So this was after the compliance date. This is a better photo of the front. You can see there's some materials sitting by the door. There's also more bins and boxes. This is a better photo of that fence panel just laying down right in front of the fence. And again, on the side there, the fence is damaged and they're storing a bunch of buckets and construction materials outdoors. This is the notice of hearing for today's hearing. And then when I went by this morning, it was more of the same. This is a better look at all that stuff just sitting out front and then on the side there. So compliance meant for the exterior storage by removing from the grounds of the property all items not meant for outdoor use, such as bins, boxes, construction materials, mini fridge, and other miscellaneous items. Compliance to be met for the fence maintenance by repairing existing fence or removing it. Repair means ensuring it is upright, panels are securely attached, and missing slats are replaced. And requesting compliance are before June 27, 2026, or a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day the violation is continuing to exist.

Thank you. Questions from the board? All right. 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.

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 27th of 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for 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. Chair Jerry Cook All in favor? Aye. Chair Jerry Cook All opposed? Motion carries. Chair Jerry Cook Thank you very much, Boyd. Chair Jerry Cook Thank you, Inspector. Moving on, Agenda Item 3.21, Case 99-26, Fine Respondents Renzi, Dalit at 808 Normandy Road in violation of code for development code violation, shed. and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Inspector Jensen, you have the floor. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? No. Inspector, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, Board. Thank you, Inspector Kasman. We're going to work from here, I guess. This is 808 Normandy, Dave Jensen, code inspector for City of Clearwater, case number 99-26. Let's see if I can get this. There we go. Shouldn't have left it where it was. This is going to be for a zoning violation. There is an accessory structure that's been placed in front of the residents, between the residents and the right-of-way. It's one violation under the 1-104, which is the zoning which covers the 3-203 that does not allow any accessory structures between the primary building and the right-of-way. These are the dates of the notice of violation. The return mail was received, signed. I did speak to the owner back in February about it. He told me that he has renters in there that he was trying to evict, so I gave him some extra time hoping he could get it taken care of. He stated they were the ones that put the shed out there. The shed was posted with a notice so that both the owner and the renters would be able to see it. This is where the shed started out at. There we go. This is where the shed started out at. The neighbor complained because he did at one point have it shoved up into the shrubs. The property line is about right where the shed was sitting when I originally went to look at it. This is the date that I went out to look at it originally as well and posting to put on it, let them know that was in violation. This is after the compliance date. This is on 5-21, well after the compliance date. They had moved it from where it was at, turned it sideways, and just placed it in a different spot, which does not alleviate the violation. And then this was this morning. Nothing's changed with it. It's not been corrected. Compliance to be made by removing the shed from between the right-of-way and the front of the principal structure. I am requesting compliance on it before 6-17-26 or a fine of $150 per day for each day the violation exists.

Thank you. Board, do you have any 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.

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

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before June 27th, 2026. If the respondent is not... Sorry, it says June 17th on the order. Thank you, Chelsea.

You're very welcome. I've got some short people here.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on before June 17, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day for 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.

I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Next on our agenda, item 3.22, case 100-26, find respondents Cody Ruth at 519 Florida Avenue in violation of code for short-term rental and residential rental business tax receipt, and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Stevens, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, Board. John Stevens, Code Compliance Inspector for the City of Clearwater. Again, this is case number 100-26 regarding 519 Florida Avenue. We have two violations here for Code Section 1-104 and 3-919. We use that together for the illegal short-term rental violation. And then Code Section 3-2302 for not having a residential rental business tax receipt, which is required. There we go. Notice of violation originally was mailed out on March the third of this year. I got it returned to sender. They refused to accept it on March the 23rd. So research the property and make sure it was still in violation and actually went out and posted the property on March 23rd with a compliance date of March 30th. There is the posting actually out on the property. This is a picture of 519 Florida Avenue from Google Maps, and it's kind of hard to see, but I did a little circle up here. There's a column up there that's got 519 very large on there that you'll see in the posting where they had it on Airbnb. But this is actually a duplex property. It has two units within it. This is the Airbnb posting. This was from March the 3rd and I was able to select as low as two days to reserve the property and for our code, you cannot do anything less than 31 calendar days or one calendar month. This was pictures from that posting as well, showing that it is the exact same property. Again, the post there with 519 up here in the one corner and then also down over here. This is a screenshot from our seller program where if you had a business tax receipt, if you applied for it, it had been approved or whatnot, it would show up in this system. And the last PTR that was actually from this property was in 2012 for a rental and it went out of business. The property has changed ownership since then and obviously we need a new business tax receipt. This is the actual same listing on March the 23rd when I went back and verified it that it was still in violation. Again, I could get it for as little as two days. And double checking the system, we still, there was no pending VTR application. Fast forward all the way to March 31st, so this was after the compliance date. The property. The original Airbnb listing had been deleted. Since this is a duplex, it has 519 and 521 in it, so I ended up finding this listing in there, so it had an appearance like it went into compliance. But as you can see, the hosting person down here I have circled. in red it's the exact same person that was hosted on 521 and 519 with a minimum two night stay again the btr again does not match there's not a btr for 521 either i double checked that And again, this is that secondary unit right here. So you can see the 521 that's up here in the corner hosted by Cody two night minimum stay. And when you even look through Google Maps, you can see here that's the 519 that I was talking about. But circled is 521 with an arrow to the side and you can barely see it. There's a 521 there from that angle. And if you've ever played with Google Maps at all, it's kind of hard sometimes to get exact angles to look at things i was able to get it scroll a little bit and you can actually see the 521 that is there for that duplex again double checking that btr there was not one for 519 nor is there one for 521 there was one back and looks like 2004 again for a duplex but again it is out of business so it does not apply So compliance could be met for the illegal short-term rental by changing any rental listing on any website or platform such as Airbnb, VRBO, Booking.com, etc. to a minimum of 31 days or one calendar month or they can delete the listing altogether and if they want to rent the property on a yearly basis they can do that or even a monthly basis but they're just going to have to comply with what the code says. Compliance can be met for the residential rental business tax receipt by obtaining that residential rental business tax receipt or stop leasing the property, period, and then they would not be required to have it. So my recommendations for the case for the illegal short-term rental and the residential rental business tax receipt is requesting compliance by June 6th of this year or a fine of $150 a day for the illegal short-term rental and then a fine of $50 a day for the residential rental business tax receipt for each day that those violations continue to exist.

We're dealing with two separate violations here, correct? That is correct. Madam Secretary, I believe that would be two separate Orders and findings. Maybe that's, I mean, two separate declarations as one. So we just combine, we stipulate the specific fines in our second order. That would be correct. Okay. Very good. Any questions for the inspector?

I guess my question is these are, so it's four technically violations because it's two on each one or it's one for the whole building?

It's just for the whole property. Okay. Our violations go by the property.

Okay.

even though they have separate listings on the Airbnb at separate addresses. You're bringing this as one.

That's correct, because it's for that parcel. OK. We go by property.

OK. Well, that answers that. Thank you. Makes it a lot simpler. All right. Any contact from the owner at all? No. None at all. OK. Any other questions from the board? You guys are all quiet today. All right. Can we have a first motion then?

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. I have a second motion detailing the two separate fines distinctly placed.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation on or before June 6, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 a day 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. All right.

What I'm looking to do is there's two violations. One is fined at 150. The other is fined at 50. So I'm almost thinking we could use his wording there in our motion to specifically detail the fine of 150 a day for the illegal short-term funeral and a fine of 50 for the residential rental business tax receipt.

Okay, if there's one that does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 a day for the illegal short-term rental violation and a fine of $50 a day for the residential rental business tax receipt violation. uh 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 second all in favor aye all opposed motion carries thank you thank you board thank you sir item 3.23 is uh withdrawn 3.24 is withdrawn

Next case is 3.25, case 103-26. Fine respondents Michael Plunkett at 205 South San Remo Avenue in violation of code for unsafe building. An issue and order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Inspector Larson, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, Board. My name is James Larson. Inspector for City of Clearwater. This case is on 205 South St. Raymond Avenue. Case number 103-26. We have one violation. Property maintenance requirements. Minimum building and fire code requirements. All buildings shall be maintained in accordance with the Florida Building Code, Florida Fire Prevention Code, International Property Maintenance Code. Section 3-1503 is nuisances, the existence of any of the following specific conditions. Buildings which are abandoned, boarded up, partially destroyed, left for a period of three months in a state of partial construction. This is an abandoned property. Notice of violation, 3-10-2026. Compliance date, 27 days after the receipt. Certified mail returned unsigned, 327. Property posted, 4-1 of this year. Notice of hearing posted, 4-14. Notice of hearing. Abandoned derelict home, previous case. This had a previous case, unsafe 2015-00027. It was found in violation on 2-26-2020. The code board gave the city authorization to enter onto the property and correct the violation as needed. Time has passed. We are now seeking to update the authorization to correct the longstanding violation. Here's where the property is. You're looking at west of Highland and north of Gulf to Bay there. This is the previous notice of lien imposed. And then here we have the board order. This is from 2020, I believe. These are my postings, the 1st and the 14th of April this year. Here's the front of the house on March 9th. There's one side. This is the rear. You'll notice the wall has disappeared. There's quite a bit going on there. Again, the rear of the house. The other side, you'll notice every window on the property is busted. It's been some type of transient camp for many years. Again, this is the side. Open windows. Missing siding. The roof is a shamble. Here's the rear of the structure. This was being used as a transient camp. Kind of looks like a debris field. These are inside the property through broken windows. This thing's been abandoned for a long time. And this was yesterday. There's been no change. My postings have not been removed. For compliance to be met, complete restoration to meet minimum code requirements or demolish the remaining structure.

That would be a good candidate. Sir, that's why we're here today.

Recommendation for case number 103-26. The structure is not in compliance by June 27th, 2026. The city asked the board to authorize entrance on the property to correct the violations. The city will correct the violations by any means necessary with any reasonable costs to be applied as liens against the property. After three months from the recording date of such lien, if the fines and fees remain unpaid, the city attorney's office is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien using any legal or equitable remedies available under the law.

I have a question, and I don't know who it's for.

You and me both.

Since this has been going on since 2020, why do we even have to give a compliance date?

Well, so we have an old order, and we've brought it back because we are specifically asking for authority for the city to enter and demolish and move all the debris and completely clean the property. So because we're seeking that elevated remedy, we thought it best to come back. And essentially, if the city does carry out the demolition and bring the property into compliance, the old order with the fines running would then, those fines would then stop the day that the city brings the property into compliance. But we also would seek to recoup the costs of demolition and abatement and all that. So because the order has been out there for a while, we felt that it was safe and prudent to bring it to the board, have another hearing on it, and make clear that we're seeking this elevated remedy of demolition Okay.

Thank you. So we already did an order on here. You had the right to do a lien, which you've already done, but you also can foreclose. Why aren't you taking that action then?

I believe we looked at this one, and there may have been some homestead claim to it. Obviously, there may not be some legitimacy to that claim. Our practice in the past has been, because the property appraiser makes the determination of homestead, not the city, and our practice has always been to stay out of that. When we look for cases to refer to foreclosure, if we see that they're homestead, we typically remove them from our list. We don't recommend them for foreclosure. That's not to say that we couldn't attempt to foreclose and then claim that they were or try to argue that this is not a legitimate homestead, that it's a fraudulent claim of homestead. This is one situation where we will discuss that internally, make a decision. That is something that would be taken to the city council for consideration before it's actually pursued. But we have been discussing that internally. Just to give a little clarification for some of the newer members, Chapter 162 specifically says that we cannot foreclose a code enforcement lien against homesteaded property. So it's sort of an immunity against these liens. And so we don't typically try to challenge that, but this could be an example case where we may actually consider challenging that. Did I say something incorrect? Our building official, our esteemed building official.

Kevin Garriott of the building department. Why did you think you said something wrong? You jumped up. You jumped up. I just wanted to point out to the board that I think the foreclosure is secondary to the fact of getting that property cleaned up and made safe. It's open to the world, basically. That's the foremost thing that we are trying to do now. And whether we foreclose or not, that is secondary in nature.

I mean, once you remove the house, doesn't that remove homestead? You can't live in nothing.

Well, the way the courts interpret, so homestead is a constitutional right that people have. And courts interpret it very favorably in favor of the property owner. And so if the property owner has an intent to make the property their homestead even. There's been cases where that intent alone was enough to assert a homestead protection. So because it's such a strong protection and it's a constitutional right, it's something that typically the city, we do not attempt to interfere with that or challenge that. Obviously, there are cases where challenging it may be warranted. This could be one. Like I said, how that would work is right now we're just asking for authority to go in there and clean it up, and then we'll figure out what to do about collecting the costs to make the taxpayers whole later. And that conversation would happen internally with the city attorney's office and the staff. and then ultimately we would take a recommendation to the city council if we felt like we could make a case.

Thank you. To our attorney? Went to nuisance of payment.

That's not how they brought it. All we can do is look at the cases, how the city designed stuff right now. As Jared said, there's a bunch of different reasons behind that. A lot of times the whole process for foreclosure is much longer. Now nuisance abatement, that's up to the city on how they want to proceed, whether they want to do it just as a nuisance abatement or the process that we're doing here.

And what's the shortest time period we can give you authorization to go in there and do this? Do we have to wait 30 days or can we?

Three days is normally the shortest.

I think we should...

That's an excellent point. I was wondering why we were doing, like, June 27th. Do you care to say anything about that, Inspector or Mr. Garriott?

We just chose 30 days just to give them yet another fair chance.

Is that not going to reset everything? for the fines or anything else?

My opinion is that we have an order that establishes that there is a violation in place already. Those fines are running and what we're seeking now is essentially an abatement order. It wasn't on that portion of your agenda as but if i think we put a suggested motion in the powerpoint and we're just asking for um a motion of of that uh that would sound like or look like that um if the city the the fines for the previous order would continue to run up until the date that the city um carries out the abatement and cleans the property

It's an unsafe building. I mean, the city can come in quicker if they need to. That's up to the city.

I think we should put a motion earlier than June 27th.

It can't go as a nuisance abatement. I think you can come in quicker if you want a shorter period of time to secure the property. Especially in light of the fact that there's previous fines on this property that are still continuing. I just think if you have people living on it, it's not safe.

Is there a legal requirement for owner notification before any action is taken? Yes. So we need, it should be probably something like 10 days. to make sure the owner gets legal notification. That way everybody's rear end is covered so to speak.

I don't think any time period is going to affect it.

I don't either, but I don't want it argued later either.

So there's an existing unsafe building order out there or not. Yes, there is. Yeah. Okay. So what are we adding now?

That's not included in the remedy to demo for the city to demolish.

We're just okay.

It says including entry onto the property to bring the property into compliance. Does that not get you there?

Yeah.

Well, like I was saying earlier, because we have this old order, we hadn't acted upon it in many years. We thought it was best to come back, have a hearing to make clear that we were going to act on the authority to demolish.

But if it was only a year, you'd have the same issue. What would you do normally? Wouldn't you give them a notice?

Are you saying that their order is invalid now? Is that what you're saying?

No, you're just saying if it's homesteaded, you can't. Well, if it's homesteaded, you can't. But you can go in and fix unsafe conditions. And that's already been authorized through that original order. So I'm not sure. What would you do normally if this was six months or a year from that order? you wouldn't come back and ask us to do another order. You'd have some type of notification that you do routinely to the owner and say, hey, we're coming in.

Right. We would send a letter. We would run title. We would start moving that process forward.

So why doesn't that work now?

It's been a long time for this one, so we brought it back.

The only thing I would tell you is that that's how the city would like to proceed, bringing it before you and making that request.

Okay. Okay. Let's do it. Well, instead of 30 days, can we just give them half of that, 15 days? I think we're going to do 10. 10 days? 10.

All right. 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.

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

You may, but what am I supposed to say here? Because it's not a violation. They're not getting another charge every day that they're not in there.

Well, they brought a...

So what do I say here? And what's the 10th date from now? June?

You can give them another fine if you so choose because it's basically considered a separate case.

Okay. Yeah. So we'll do 150 days. What's 10 days from now? 150 per day.

$150 per day.

The 7th?

The 10th. Well, this isn't the original. The 7th.

I mean, you can do 7th. Just so you know, you can do up to $250 per day. Okay. Let's do June 7th.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before June 7, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $250 per day for a violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such a lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such a lien.

have a second second all in favor aye all opposed but i have a question motion passes thank you board does this give the city the permission to go in and demolish because it seems like we already had this in place

Well, I mean, if the board is authorizing that, then that's what it is. And that's what we're asking for. So we just wanted to be clear that we're asking for the authority to demolish from the board. So if the board is going to give us that authority, then we can work to carry that out within the time frame that the board specifies.

So do we need to have that in our order, though?

that would be my my request would be that someone would make a motion um that the city could correct the violation by any means necessary as as it's stated on on the screen there um within if the if the time frame from the board is 10 days then then that would be stated and that that's the motion that that we were looking for just to clarify that we we do have that express authority and we're going to act on it okay

Well, we can make a motion just with this verbiage right here changing the date. We already voted on it. Well, but that doesn't mean we can't make another motion on the same case, does it not?

No, you made a motion. You seconded it. Everybody voted in favor. I would just go forward with what... the city has been asking and let them deal with it. I think they're comfortable.

So everything we did made it okay for you to go in and tear it down? I think so.

They'll go in and secure the property how they see fit.

Okay.

Madam Secretary, I do not have a copy of the lien reduction request on our next. You can pass one over to me. Well, I do now.

Thank you. Do you need one? All right.

That concludes our new business items. Next is old business items, and on our agenda it's number 4.1. It's case 128-25. Consider request by petitioners Corolli, Wendells, and Doors, LLC at 1165 Elder Street to reduce the fine regarding permits and approved issue an order that specifies a fine that includes administrative costs, administration costs, and establishes a date payable or the lien will revert to its original amount. I believe we have someone here to speak on that. I recognize his face. Yes, hi. Hi, welcome back. Had we known it was going to be this long, we'd have probably put you first up at bat. That's all right.

Sorry for the waiting time. Hello again. My name is Clint Morell. I'm counsel for Crowley Windows and Doors. Do I have the floor now, or? No.

I know.

I have to look and see in the battery. You can guide me on what we do next. Who do we hear from? Inspector Reese. Oh, here we go. All right. So you stated your name. All right. Let's hear from the inspector next.

Hello again, board. Inspector Kat Reese with the city of Clearwater. This is in reference to case 128-25. They are requesting a lien reduction at 1165 Eldridge Street. I can go through the old slides if you want, but I prefer to just skip down to our recommendation.

I think we should have some testimony.

Okay. So in reference to case 128-25, the city's total cost is $1,707.20. The city does not support granting a lien reduction until all open code violations have been brought into compliance. Should the lien reduction subsequently be granted, the city recommends that the reduced lien amount be no less than the city's included costs. Okay.

Well, I have a question before you step away. Is it, I'm getting the idea that it's not in compliance, is that correct?

The violation that was brought before the board has been So it is now in compliance, but there is still an open stop work order that has been ignored that will be brought before the code board shortly. So that is why the city is not recommending the lien reduction until all violations are in compliance.

Your general rule is if the violation that this money is tied to, the fine, has been come in compliance, then you can hear a reduction. That's been your rule in the past. However, there is a consideration of what else is going on with the property. And the only thing I would tell you in that is it may be a consideration on whether or not you're going to reduce the fine. So the board may want to look into whether or not you want to

delay making a finding until the rest of the code cases are resolved this is all at your discretion that would be my first instinct just i have some questions anyway yes please well i think we should hear their thing because i well okay what is what is the i have a couple of questions if you don't mind what is the stop work order regarding um Was the fence done without a permit?

Do you see these blue awnings right here? Yes. They have footings. It needs engineer sign and seal plans. It needs to get permitted. It looks like it's coverage for whatever they do back there for work. It's very difficult. This was, at the time, had nothing in the property back in 2019. This is from 2025, and there are all these awnings throughout the property. We don't know the setbacks. We don't know any of that, but it does require a permit because it is into the ground.

Okay.

I was going to say the stuff reporters in reference to specifically those.

That is correct. It was separate from the fence because that requires its own permit. When I first started, again, was going down a list. So that is why it wasn't met at the same time. It was an overwhelming amount of cases to take over. But I did make the attorney aware at our last code board meeting that they also had this violation. I've sent the notices that will be brought before the code board within the next two months.

Okay. So the fence was permitted and was inspected and is now in compliance and that permit is closed? Yes, sir.

All right.

Good. All right. Any other questions of the inspector before we move forward?

We have a $10,500 desired lien reduction here.

That's the total amount of the current lien. We, of course, would like to hear the entirety. My understanding is that the general policy is it doesn't go below what is the cost of having handled the matter, which I think is a reasonable position. So we're not challenging that. So we would request it down to... to those administrative costs. I wasn't sure what that figure was at the time when I submitted this. It says the lien reduction is for the full amount, but we know that that's not going to be the case. As far as, does that answer your question?

No, I was actually asking the inspector because I have questions for you. So as I was saying, we have $10,500 lien reduction. In the letter that the, I guess, company sent president, they said when they first received the code enforcement board's first notices regarding the code violations for fence, they weren't aware. They thought it was grandfathered in. But I'm sure the city has a website that says fences have to be permitted. If you're putting a new fence in, it all has to be permitted. That is correct. And that's what I'm sure you would advise.

Yes, our notice of violations goes over the code and as to what needs to get permitted. So they have been made aware legally by notice of violation.

Right. Okay. So in their letter they're saying they didn't understand that, but I don't see how they could not. But anyway, so now I will direct my questions to you. So you represented him, this company, back in October?

I didn't. Well, so let me run it back up. My firm has represented this company for a while. I was first brought in, as far as I know, the firm was first brought in to handle this code violation matter in the December timeframe after the notice went out of December 19th.

of 2025 for the hearing that took place on january 28th of this year um so you're mr morrell i am mr morrell so i was retained in the case in the minutes of october 22nd it says you were present at the october meeting yeah that's in our minutes

Okay, that's an error on my part. Then I apologize for that. Just to those that when they came to me, there were communications with CAT. And I don't mean, we're not saying CAT did anything wrong. CAT communicated to them. She advised that there had been some modifications to the fence or that the fence wasn't the same as it had been and that it therefore needed to be grandfathered in. But when they came to me to respond to the notices that had been sent, their understanding at the time was that this fence, I think they said, had been in place since the 60s. They thought it was grandfathered. There was a concern that they would not be able to keep the barbed wire fence in place under the current code. And so they wanted, that's why they were, you know, on this idea that it was grandfathered. I reviewed with them with the assistance of CAT. We advised that there were some changes made to the fence. We understand that the fence had been there for quite some time, but the gate was moved. I think the location of the gate was moved. The yellow items were put up. Some of the slats in the fence were changed, and there may have been A FEW OTHER THINGS. SO AT THAT TIME, WHEN I APPEARED, WE DID AGREE TO UNDERTAKE THE CHANGES TO THE FENCE. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE DATE ERROR IN THIS LETTER. I ASSISTED WITH DRAFTING THE LETTER. IT'S MY ERROR. The after the code enforcement board made its order, my client did endeavor to obtain the permits as quickly as possible. There was an issue with a vendor on the property that actually damaged the gate. That resulted in an insurance claim. The scope of the work at that point is that apparently there's an issue with getting the gate to actually install, and that all tied up and delayed some of the process. Notwithstanding, they did submit the permit in February of this year, and that's a few months after the understanding developed and the effort started to actually get the gate resolved. So that's the basis. I think there's a little more detail in the letter for the request for the reduction. As to the other matter, I unfortunately do not have much information. I was made aware that that was an item. I thought that it had... also been resolved i didn't know that it was still proceeding and pending forward so i'm going to certainly go back and you know talk with my client about that one but to the extent they're unrelated we would request that the board consider a reduction notwithstanding i still have another question for the gentleman um so when did these contractors and the fence got hit by a car and stuff like that when was all that february No, I don't think that was in February. I don't know the exact time period for that. I don't have that with me.

The reason I'm asking is because as Member Keene made this motion, and we gave Elenia six months to get this all completed. And so that takes you to January, and then the permit was issued in February. And...

that that violation for the fence has been in it is now in compliance so so yes they're asking for a lien reduction um since they did come in compliance and they and the city agrees they are in compliance with defense however there is still an a separate outstanding violation that needs to be corrected that is why the city is not uh suggesting that we do the lien reduction at this time

I'm sorry, what did you just say? The whole thing? The metaphors I'm looking for. You're recommending a lien reduction.

We are not recommending a lien reduction until all of the violations on the property are brought into compliance. Once that is done, they can go ahead and put in for another lien reduction, and we can redo the cost to the city and then move from there. But it's ultimately up to you.

Is there another order out there for this other violation?

There's an open stop work order. It is pending cohort.