Municipal Code Enforcement Board - Regular Meeting

. . . . Thank you.

All right.

Today's meeting of Municipal Code Enforcement Board is called to order on June 24, 2026. Welcome, everyone. Please rise for the Pledge of 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 site 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 please rise and be sworn in by the clerk. 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? Yes, ma'am.

Just a verbal motion.

Oh, yes. Yes.

All right. Motion to approve the minutes.

Second? Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next on the agenda are new business items. First on our agenda is item 3.1 that has been withdrawn. Second item is 3.2. Madam Secretary has asked me to have this continued. I'd like a motion to have case 64-26 continued until next month. Is that correct?

Yes.

All right. What's our date for next month?

July 22.

All right. May I have a motion to continue this case until July 22?

Motion approved. No. Make a motion to continue.

It's both of them, 3.2 and 3.3. They're the same individuals. All right. Somebody give me a motion.

I make a motion that 3.2, case number 64-26, and case number 6526 are continued until July 22nd.

May I have a second? Did I hear a second? Yes. All right. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Our next case, 3.4 on the agenda, 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. I understand on this case we have people here and an interpreter involved. Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

so the respondent did not appear so we don't okay nobody's seeing nobody inspector reese you have the floor good afternoon go for it i'm inspector kat reese with the city of clearwater this is going to be for case 80-26 at 2021 north betty lane sorry It's going to be for one violations permits required section 4-203.a.1. Specifically, permit required for garage conversion to include windows, doors, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing. Had multiple notices of violations that gone out. This is one of the old cases as well. Began in March 18th of 2022. Final notice was sent November 21st of 2025. Certified mail was signed December 24th of 2025. So this is going to be on Betty Lane, just south of Idlewild Drive. And this is the structure that is requiring permits. And that was the original inspection photos that were taken.

I'm sorry to interrupt you. Yes, sir. Can we go back to that? Are we looking at the property in the foreground or the one over the fence?

Right here, this yellow garage. The window was installed here. This was closed off.

That's fine. I just, it looks like you're looking. Oh yes. I wasn't doing anything. I knew what I was looking at there. Thank you.

I do believe that was from street view though. Yeah. It's a weird, a weird street there.

Understood.

So the, the property owner did apply for a permit back in 2022 to come into compliance. However, it has expired as of January 2nd of 2025. Um, which includes a lot of failed inspections. So the point of this permit is to ensure that all that work is up to code. And, uh, you know, we've had multiple continuances on this case, try to work with the property owner when he comes and shows up the code board and he's not here today. So we just need to move on with this. So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit with inspections, requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on a before July 20, 4th, 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. Any questions?

Any questions from the board for Inspector Reeves? No. May I have a first motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before July 24th. No, first motion. First motion, I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in affidavit in this case.

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

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before July 24th of 2026. If the respondent does not comply by the date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each and 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 on such lien.

We have a second.

Chelsea, second.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector Reece. Next on our agenda, Item 3.5, Case 107-26. Fine Respondents Huiz Luis Jones at 1834 North Washington Avenue in violation of code for exterior surfaces. An issue and order with a 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, can you state your name and address in relation to the property for us? Yeah.

I am Jose Johnson, and I am the proprietary owner of the house.

OK. So you reside there. The address listed here is your address? Yes. OK. Thank you, sir. The first question we have for you is, do you admit or deny the violation?

No. I admit that, yes, I have not been able to do the repairs. I have hired people to do it, and they just walk away with my money.

Chair Greg Musil. Understood. For now, I'm sorry to interrupt you. For now, what we're going to do is first we'll hear from the inspector, let him present what information he has, and then we'll call you back up to tell us more, okay?

Sure.

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? Motion carries. Inspector Dixon, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, Board. I'm Greg Dixon. I'm the Co-Compliance Inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is case 107-26 for 1834 North Washington Avenue. There's one violation at the property for exterior surface violation, Code Section 3-1502 . This case started with a courtesy notice in March of last year, and then I sent certified mail out later in the fall, and that posted the property in January. This is the property. It's just got some exterior surface issues. There's some rotten wood, peeling paint. This is later in the fall of last year. And this is in January when I posted the property. Not much changed. The grounds have been cleaned up, but the house still needs some attention. All right, the computer's still up. Here's the property today, chipped and peeling paint, rotten wood on the exterior.

May I ask you a question while we're looking at these pictures of this sighting? What type of sighting is that? Is that a Masonite sighting or is that like a mineral sighting? What is that?

It's green.

Pardon?

I don't know. It's a Masonite. What it looks like, yes. I'm not sure what it's made out of.

I put that stuff up.

So are we looking at fence violations, too, or could you explain what this means?

No, those could just be thrown away. I'm not sure if those are from his property or the neighboring property. It's just for the exterior of the home.

Okay.

So compliance can be met for the exterior by replacing any defective structural or decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, faded and peeling paint. And I would request compliance on or before August 1st or a fine of $150 per day per violation.

Board, do you have any questions for the inspector at this point? Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Jones? What can you tell us about all this?

Yeah, if you notice in the pictures, I've been trying to do the job myself to no avail. I'm very slow. I did have actually a double hernia surgery back in 2024. And what happened is I had a physical altercation with my ex. He punched me right there, and he ruptured both of them. So it's hard for me to lift weight. I was told by the doctor I cannot lift more than 15 pounds. However, I've been doing some work as best as I can.

Sir, can you either get closer to the microphone? So we want to be able to hear you and understand you.

So what happened is I did have, a hernia repaired and then I had a physical heart attack, I mean a fight with my ex before he was taken away and then he punched me right there and then he ruptured my hernia. I don't have money to get the surgery right now, but I'm scheduled supposedly for the 25th of July, and I'm waiting for that. I cannot lift in much weight. I was told that I could only lift 15 pounds. However, if you notice in the pictures, you will see that the peeling of the painting outside of the house, it was not as bad as their very last photo. If you look at it, it says that's been me. I scraped and I took all the peeling and I've been doing the best that I can. But I'll admit that I'm very slow. Understood. I've been hiring people to do this work for me and so far I have had like three different people walk away with my money.

What can you tell us about your plans to get the repairs done?

I do have my friend coming over from Minnesota. I moved from Minnesota to here, from Minneapolis to here. And then he's coming over and within the next couple weeks, but that's as fast as he can. And I do have also one of the neighbors that he said that he will help me out. The truth is, I don't have much money left. I was a truck driver. I drove OTR, which is over the road, all over the country, and my boss doesn't want to get me back until I fix my hernia because he thinks I would be a liability. So until I get my surgery, I cannot go back trucking. But I'm waiting for that so I can make some money and then continue to improve my property because it needs quite a bit of work. It was a fix-it-up rent, and I bought it in 2014. And of course, everybody wants to live in a beautiful home. I'm not exceptional to that. And I do want to also, but I need to be in a physical, you know, optimal physical condition too. Okay. And, yes, I am very slow. I'm sorry.

I have a question, Mr. Jones. Do you think your friend that's going to come over from Missouri in the next couple weeks to help you get your house, the outside in condition, do you think he'll be able to do that before August 1st?

I'm hoping so because he's a competitor.

Well, hoping and thinking and knowing is two different things.

All I have to present to you is just his word and what he said, and I'm trusting that he has done good by me. Has he told you that he would come over? He has done good by me in the past, so I'm hoping. He was the one that actually helped me replace the window that was broken on the side of the house. He did that, and now it's on the back door.

And what happens if he does?

What happens if he doesn't? And then I'm going to have to try to find a way to do it. I'll admit I don't have money to hire a contracting company. I have checked. It's originally expensive. I know how to do some of this work, and I've been doing it. But right now I have a physical impediment. That's all.

Have you been in touch with your inspector? I did call him once.

When I got the first letter, I did call him once. And then I explained to him that I don't have the ability to do all of it as fast as he wanted me to do it. He gave me 30 days. So at that point, I'll admit that all I have to do is just drop my arms whenever it comes because I don't have the money and I don't have the workforce. I just do what I can.

Do you have a clear understanding of what it is you need to do to get in compliance?

Yeah. I did hire an electrician and I'll admit this is a problem that I do have. I hired an electrician because my ceiling fan in the living room was not working. And then when I came back from work, and then he said that everything was done, he put the key in there. So when I turned the light on, it actually sparked and damaged my hallway and my bathroom. I don't have electricity in my living room, hallway and bathroom. I need to hire somebody to do that. Somebody said that he will help me. I'm trusting that it will happen. And when it comes to the siding, I'm trusting that I could actually count on these people to help me out with that. I know I can do the work. I've painted apartments and houses before for our living.

Mr. Jones, we're not dealing, and I can understand your predicament with the electrical, but we're not dealing with the inside of your home right now. We're dealing with the exterior.

I just wanted to let you know that as well as I am trusting, these people that are coming to help me in the outside of the house. I do have also problems inside of the house. I mean, a house is a big responsibility and I do understand that. However, it's only me against the whole structure at this point. And I will do my best to bring it back.

I have a question, Mr. Jones. I just wanted to understand if I confirmed that I heard you correctly. Earlier you said that the pictures that were shown on the screen were not accurate and that you were scraping the paint off. Is that what I heard?

If you look at the pictures before, And you look at the very last picture, you will see that the shades, I mean the patches, are bigger. The reason for that is because I actually took, it took me a whole weekend, Friday, Saturday, Saturday, to scrape everything.

So you're working currently on the outside of the exterior of the home. Is Inspector Dixon. Dixon. Dixon. Have you seen the property? When was the last time you actually saw this property to confirm if Mr. Jones is working on the property itself outside?

My pictures were from this morning.

From this morning. Okay. All right. Thank you.

So actually it's not better, Mr. Jones. It's been scraped off. It's different. It's different, yes. It's not better. You said it was better than what his picture showed. It's not better.

I'm scraping it so I can prime it and then paint it because I'm It has a lot of feeling. And then if I don't scrape the filling, I can't help painting.

Yeah, it has to be primed because you scraped it off and then painted.

But I haven't gotten to it yet. I can't lift the five gallon one.

I understand that. I'm just going by what you said, though. His pictures showed it to look worse than what it is. It doesn't.

It does look worse, yes, because I scraped it. So I made the patches. I made them worse, of course. But it has to be scraped off before I can actually prime it. And I already have the prime, and I already have the...

Were you getting it ready for your friend to come over and... Yeah, I already paid for his... You already paid for that service?

Yeah, I paid. No, I don't want to pay. He's going to help me. But I did pay for his Greyhound bus.

I'm sorry, say that again?

Greyhound bus ticket. I did pay for that.

You paid for his ticket over. Okay.

So he can come over. I'm hoping that he will actually come.

If they can do it for free...

Yeah, because he has helped me. I helped them too. I used to live in Minneapolis, and he used to be my landlord.

That'll help you, yeah.

I hope so.

You said you paid for his ticket over. What's the date of his ticket?

I'm hoping that he will come up in two weeks, and this is going to be like the 3rd.

But did you say you bought his ticket to come here? Yeah. What is the date of his ticket?

I sent them money so he could get tickets.

Oh, you sent him money to buy the ticket.

$128.

Can you call him to confirm when he's going to come?

Yeah, he said that. I keep in touch with him.

I know, but you keep saying you're hoping. That's not knowing.

No, I did. I spoke to him only last night.

So you sent him money for him to buy a ticket to come over, but you have not confirmed the date as to when your friend is going to be coming over to help you?

I believe that he already purchased the ticket for the third.

He already purchased it?

I believe so, yeah.

You believe so, okay.

I don't have something to mention.

When are you thinking you'd like to extend the compliance date and maybe give them an extra 30 days?

Maybe September.

We'd be okay with that.

That's what I wanted to hear. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

I just want to clarify. So if he scrapes, paints the site and then the gutters and stuff, that'll take the whole thing?

Places all the defective wood and outside pieces and gets it painted and then you have a new component.

You understand that, Mr. Johnson? Yeah.

I believe that I can do all the painting, but I don't know how to do the woodwork. So that's why I need him. I need Kevin to do that. I don't know how to do that.

Now, what happens if it delays? Would you be in contact with the inspector and let him know?

I could. All right. Any other questions from the board? All right. May I have a second motion?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation on or before September 1, 2026. Is that what we're doing? Yes. Yes. 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, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next on our agenda, number 3.6, case 108-26, find respondents Hugo Paz Mateos and Anahi Mejia at 405 North Highland Avenue in violation of code for exterior storage. and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Casman, you have the floor.

Give it a second.

Second. Second, Daniel. Good afternoon, Board. Daniel Casman, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is case number 108-26 for 405 North Highland Avenue. There's one violation here for Code Section 3-1502, G1, G2, and G3 for exterior storage. These are the dates and notes the violation went out with the compliance date. I also did have to post the property with the affidavit of posting. Just give it a second. There we are. So this is 405 North Highland Avenue. As you can see in this first photo, there's some concrete bags, some construction materials. in the front of the porch there. Another striking thing that drew my eye to the location was the pile of pallets that was sitting out front. The person there seems to be pretty handy. There's a lot of tools outside. They were also looking to install a new driveway seam, but there was no permanent system. There was a bunch of wood, a bunch of pipes also being outdoors. This was the day of the posting. The pallets were still there. The same items were outdoors. It was after the compliance date after the posting, same items again were still outdoors. Someone did call me from the property and ask what they needed to come to compliance. I explained exactly what had to happen. But when I went back today, it was some improvement. I can see behind some makeshift fence they have, they do have piles of tires and buckets in the backyard too. The situation up front on the porch has definitely improved, but there's still gas cans, buckets, looks like some drywall and some laundry detergent sitting outside. And they did clean up most of the pile of pipes and wood, but they left a bunch of rebar just there adjacent to the new driveway they're putting in. So, appliance meant for the exterior storage by removing from the grounds of the property all items not meant for outdoor use such as pallets, pipes, construction materials, tires, buckets, and other miscellaneous items. And requesting for case number 108-26, request of compliance on it before July 24th, 2026, or a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day the violation continues to exist.

Daniel, I just have one question for you. Does the exterior surfaces cover that boarded-up window?

The boarded-up window was another case. And I don't know if you noticed in one of the last pictures, they removed the board from the window.

No, I didn't see that.

I might have gone too fast. The truck is also kind of blocking that window that you're seeing right here.

That's the same window?

Yes, if you go back to a previous picture. It was boarded up, but they at least removed the board, which was an easy fix. The rest of it is just putting everything else away. Okay, thank you, Dan.

It also looked like in one picture there's no pavers, and then all of a sudden there's pavers, but they're not.

That's being addressed by a separate case for installing a driveway with no permit. Okay.

Now, you mentioned you spoke to someone this morning. Did you know?

I'm sorry. It wasn't this morning. It was a few weeks back. Someone had called me, someone from the residence. They claimed they lived there, and I tried to explain to them, this is what you need to come into compliance. Every construction material, everything that doesn't belong outdoors needs to be indoors. You can't have all these items outdoors. And so there was some improvement, but it's just not where it needs to be still.

Not in all areas. No.

I mean, it is improving.

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

Mr. Chairman, I look 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. I have a second motion, please. Mr. Chairman, I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before July 24, 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 that each violation continues to exist. It finds that these remain unpaid three months after such a lien is filed. The city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such a lien.

May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Thank you, Inspector Kessler. Our next case, item on the agenda 3.7 is withdrawn, 3.8 is withdrawn, 3.9 is withdrawn, 3.10 is withdrawn. Item 3.11. Case 113-26, find respondents William Meisner Jr. and Megan Pettengill at 2967 Kenilwick Drive North in violation of code for short-term rental and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

This is the letter. They sent the letter because they couldn't hear.

I think that's 3.1. i hope the letter is for this one the letter is this one yes all right so i have it um oh correct okay good so um for the record we have a letter that was submitted by the owners uh who are not in town on the letter at the end of the day the gist of the letter is that it requests a lien reduction however that is not apropos to the business or what we're looking at today.

I believe they're requesting a lower fine amount than what the city is requesting.

I got you. I think they think that the fines have already started from the day of the violation. They're not realizing that it doesn't start until there's an order.

I would defer to counsel, but Just as a general statement, in my experience, the most appropriate approach is to hear the case, make an adjudication, and if at some point the owner wants to address fines, then they can do that in a lien reduction.

I think it will be a little clearer once I give my presentation. We are not seeking running fines. We're seeking a single flat fine for something that's already been completed that can't be cured. She's seeking a lower single fine.

Well, let's hear the case then. It'll make more sense when I get through it. Thank you.

Good afternoon, board. Sarah Green, code compliance manager for the city of Clearwater. This is case number 113-26 for 2967 Kennewick Drive. There is one violation here for an illegal short-term rental and a violation of the development code. This violation was sent and posted on 5-4, and the certified mail came back unclaimed. The reason why this is a little different than normally when we bring short-term rental cases, we're looking towards... ones that have their minimum stay like an Airbnb set to like seven days. So normally what our care for that would be, you need to update your listing to be the monthly minimum compliance. In this case, this one and the next one that I'll be presenting after this, these are properties that I've had multiple complaints in from neighbors. Essentially, we've never been able to observe them having their monthly minimum set to anything but monthly. So for all intents and purposes, when we looked at it, when the complaints came in, it said monthly. However, after multiple complaints, we came through, and the evidence I have in here is that they have reviews that say people stayed for a six-night and a seven-night stay. So that would be in violation of the short-term rental code. Ordinarily, our violations are for not having the monthly minimum. Set by a 2nd portion of the ordinance is that you cannot have evidence of overlapping states of less than monthly. So, in this case, our evidence here is this is our website is what we use to track short term rentals. It snagged that there were 2 documented stays in March of 2026. And here in the States, a little hard to see, but here it says it stayed for seven nights in March, 2026 from a Jason V and a Valerie R stayed for six nights in March of 2026. Now, if you see in the letter, I have spoken at length with Mrs. Pettengill. We've had previous cases where they did update the minimum listing. So she was aware of the short-term rental ordinance. However, as you see in the later one, she is not disputing the fact that she is in violation of the ordinance due to the fact that she wasn't aware of that. even though it wasn't advertised as a short-term rental, she still had people pay to short-term rent. So like on the back end, basically someone reached out and requested to stay for a shorter term and they allowed them to pay for it. So that's why the reviews are there for the shorter term. It makes it really hard to track down and keep track of short-term rentals. But in this case, she does not dispute the fact that there was short-term rentals. Her request is for a lower fine amount than what the city is requesting.

Inspector, can I interrupt? Absolutely. Is this her first or second offense?

Technically, this is a first offense, the first, but this is, I think, my fourth short-term complaint, but this is the first time. On this particular person? Yes, on this particular property person.

So really, technically, we've gone beyond the first offense.

Well, for legal purposes, this is the first case that's made it to court board.

All right.

So there is no compliance actions taken. This is an incurable violation that happened in the past. So there is nothing to comply with. So what stays requesting is a one-time fine for the two documented overlapping stays in March of 2026 for the six day and the seven day stays that are documented. We're seeking a fine of a hundred dollars a day for a total fine of $1,300. So when you, if the board agrees and you go to make your motion, this will be slightly different than what you normally say. Cause we're not asking for recurring fine. It would be the city is requesting a one-time fine of $1,300 payable within whatever the board would like to request. Otherwise, then you would read the rest of your script.

Okay, so to clarify, she's requesting that lien be reduced?

She's requesting less than $1,300 is what I gather from the letter.

And what does the city say about that?

We're requesting $1,300.

Is that a normal amount of money that you would request from something like that?

Generally speaking, for most violations, especially first time, we pick $150 a day recurring. In this case, she did reach back out. We spoke about it. She accepted fault. I thought it was fair to do $100 a day. But obviously, the fine is ultimately up to the board to set.

Mr. Salzman, can I confer with you for a second about the fines? I just want to check a reading of the statute to see if you agree with me or not. I was just perusing it as we were going over this case. Stand by, Sarah.

Can I ask you a question? Absolutely. You said that this was the first time that she's been... caught doing it, and so this is the first time. But has anybody ever reached out to her before about the other ones?

I have spoken with her multiple times over the years regarding this.

So how come we don't see that, but it's never been brought up here before?

The first case, when this initially came through, I basically spoke with her. I gave her a compliance date that complied within the compliance date. So it never made it to a board hearing, because they did voluntarily comply.

Oh, OK.

The other times, it was more of the neighbor says they're short-term running, but I don't have any evidence. of short-term renting. So unfortunately, it's a no violation case for us if I have no evidence.

Yeah, I was wondering why. That's a good question.

So this is the first one that's made it to the board. Traditionally, we are looking to prevent further short-term rental. But in this case, this is a property that has been reported multiple times. And this is the evidence that we have. So this is what we're seeking.

So if it happens again, Inspector, will it be a second offense? I believe it would be a repeat violation, yes. OK.

So to clear my understanding on it, you had cases before on this property for the same thing, but it never made it to the board? Correct. All right. So would it be fair to say that the owner of the property was informed and knew what the rules were, so to speak?

I believe the misunderstanding is that she did not have the monthly minimum set to below monthly. So she thought it would be OK to have people say as long as it wasn't advertised as monthly. So there's lots of interpretations.

I think this $1,300 fine should wake her up a little bit. If it happens again, it's going to be much more.

What was their daily rate of return?

I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I imagine more than what we're requesting.

And Sarah, I do apologize for this because I was getting familiar with the statutes again this morning because I haven't looked at them in a while since I'm back in business over here. But I do think we might want to consider modifying our request here. Since this is a first violation, the statute says that we have to set a fine for an amount specified in the section for each day the violation continues past the date set by the enforcement board for compliance. So they would have to set a compliance date and then the file would go into effect after that since this is the first violation. So what I would recommend that we modify our request to be is to look for a declaration of violation here. Unfortunately, I don't think we can go back and look for a fine for what's already been done for those particular days at this point. So sorry about that. Me and Mr. Salzman were just speaking about that because he was a little bit mixed up as well, but that's what I would recommend to you at this time.

So I have a question then for Mr. Salzman, and would that mean that an appropriate action? I'm sorry, yes. Would it, based on... Mr. Matt, I'm sorry, I don't remember your last name. Matthew Minich. based on council's recommendation or his origination and reading of the law there. Would it be appropriate for us to continue with this or prefer not to hear it or give it back to the city and ask them to modify their request?

Well, we would expect the request to be a declaration of violation so that there's established, in case there's a repeat, which can go up to $500 per day. The statute requires you to make a finding and then give it a chance for people to come in compliance. So that's what Matt and I were talking about.

All right. So it would be appropriate for us to do a first motion in rule? Yes.

Declaration of violation, they're in compliance as far as we know right now.

Is that something that you've done before? We have seeked violations and found in our favor previously for cases like this, but I will defer to counsel.

Okay. So we would be making our standard declaration of violation. Counsel, we would be making our standard declaration of violation. All right. May I have that motion, please?

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

I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Mr. Salzman, do we take any further action on this in terms of assessing the fine that's been requested? No further action. Okay. And then just for my own education, if I may, what happens at this point? Does the city bring back a request in the future for the fine? Only if there's a repeat violation.

okay very good and then that could be 500 per day the difference is on the repeat violation if you establish the dates that they were in violation you don't have to give them a time period to come in compliance so exactly how they proposed this if it was a repeat violation you could have gone five hundred dollars per day for each one of those days So that is significant. This is basically a one-time shot. You were found in violation. You didn't, you know, you need to make sure you don't do it again. Very good.

Thank you. So if your system finds it again for that thing, then we can fine them $500 a day. Okay. All right.

Well, this litigant just logged out.

Yeah. Luck was shorty on their side.

All right. So I believe that that's all we're doing with this case then. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you, Inspector.

I have an expletive.

say again i have the next one too okay um i'm looking at uh item agenda 3.13 has inspector maddox on are you covering for him uh 3.12 so it is all right agenda item 3.12 case 114-26 fine respondents eric and amanda erhart at 819 lantana avenue in violation of code for short-term rental an issue in order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Sir, come forward, please. Sir, would you come to the podium and give us your name and address in relation to the property?

One second. Were you sworn in, sir?

Yes, at the beginning, yeah.

Thank you.

Thanks for that. Sure. Bob Burge, and I live at 814 Narcissus Avenue in Clearwater Beach. We just wanted to, kind of from a homeowner standpoint, when we bought our property, we did our homework. We had been on the beach before. We moved into this new property.

I'm going to interrupt you, sir. I'm going to interrupt you so that we can follow our standard process. Sure. Okay. What's your relation to the property? Are you a neighbor?

Neighbor.

Okay. Very good. What we typically do, our process, is we're going to hear from the inspector once we get your information, so on and so forth. And then once we've heard from the inspector, we'll invite you to give us additional information, and then we'll proceed. All right. Thanks. Thank you very much.

Board, this is the same scenario as the last one, so seeing as how we got a declaration of violation for the last case, that's what we'll be seeking for this one as well, if you'd like to hear from the neighbor before we give that order.

All right, thank you very much. That was short and sweet. What would you like to share with us, sir?

Okay, well, thanks. Kind of from a homeowner's standpoint. So we had bought our property on Narcissus Avenue, having been another part of the island. and saw that you know what short-term rentals can do there's there's you know the good and the bad that goes with that so we did our homework there was no short-term rentals anywhere around where we where we live so that's it was a big part of our decision and if you look at the the costs involved those are you know big financial decisions for families so it wasn't long when we got in there we could the property behind us you could tell what was happening there. And it's very easy to spot. I mean, people come in on a weekend, then they leave. You look at the license plates, they're from all over the place. Different people, different, you know, and then the noise, the late at night. You know, if you're typically at midnight on a Wednesday, it's a quiet area, but not always. And that's how the short-term rentals sometimes can pop up. So we, in talking to a variety of neighbors, people were getting very, very upset. And we had contacted the city here. And I did want to make a comment about I think the work that Sarah Green does is very, very commendable and very much appreciated. So she did her job. And what we're finding on these short-term rentals, because my wife then does the inspector role of her own, these ads are placed for 30-day rentals. And there's certain days of the week for two or three hour period they change it and guess what it's such an in demand that people will fill it up then and then it's changed back to 30 days and there's a there's a whole game on the different sites on how they can beat beat the system so um you know the from our perspective we've never we've met the homeowners once and that's been two or three years ago and i think it was and then they got hit by the storm so um there's these From our view, there's these violations clearly occurring, and I think just from the previous violation, I think there's a big difference on the money that's flowing on the rentals on the beach versus that last example that you had. Thousands of dollars are coming in, so I know when you mentioned a $500 a day fine, it does take fines with some substance versus a fine. $130 fine, if I'm bringing in thousands of dollars a day and thousands and thousands of dollars a week, I don't care. But I think you also got to keep in mind the homeowners and the people around that are being impacted by these clear violations of that. And so all we're looking for is peace and quiet, and we're very thankful for this process. That's it. Any questions?

Yes, sir. Sure. How long have you been observing this?

This coming March, we will have been in this property four years in March coming up, and it was pretty quick. I mean, it was within a couple months it got our attention, the different people coming in. And, again, we've got kids and grandkids. The first thing they do is go to the pool, and our pools are right behind each other. And we don't mind that. I don't know. kids are playing at all, but when it's in violation of code and it's being done, and then they're looking at ways to get around the code, and then we're discovering what those are. People are sending me now examples. People are doing reviews. of these properties that are 30-day properties. They're doing reviews. Hey, we had a great time on Airbnb reviews. We had a great time on our three-day stay this weekend. I mean, the evidence is real obvious. These are not residents. These are in violation, and they're not 30-day minimums. So we appreciate what you guys do, and any other questions? Sure. Yeah, Bob, have you been able to talk to your neighbor about this? No, because they're never there. I mean, that's the problem. Okay. So, and then we do, you know, we do, you know, you hate to be like creepy, but, you know, you look at the cars and the driveway and it's just different all the time. It's very, very obvious. And then my wife went online and she said, here's what's happening. These are in such demand because the dollars that flow are in the thousands and thousands of dollars that if you get on and you change the 30 days to a daily fee, People are going to come on during that, you know, they find out when the high traffic time is for Airbnb or the hundreds of other sites, and then they can beat the system. And that's what we're trying to do.

Do you know if your neighbor who rents these out, he or she lives out of town or out of the state? I don't know that.

I don't know that. I don't see a none from Inspector. Sarah might know that, yeah.

What was your name again?

Last name is Burge, B-I-R-G, Bob Burge. Burge, okay.

Any other questions for Mr. Burge? I have a couple for the inspector. Thank you, sir. I appreciate you coming. Again, thanks to all of you. Thank you, Mr. Byrd. So when did this case first start?

This is another one very similar to the last case where they've had multiple complaints over the years, but I was never able to catch it being less than monthly. This case specifically started in May, actually just a couple weeks after the previous one, which is an odd timing for two in a row, but there you go. I sent the notice, was sent and posted on May 12th, and this one had four documented stays, two in April, two in March. So we're seeking a declaration for it now.

All right. Council? Based on our previous one, I just want to clarify and make sure we're just doing a standard violation.

Standard declaration. Declaration. And first and second motions? No. First motion. It's a motion finding in violation, but corrected prior. So it's a declaration of violation.

Well, that brings the question, has it been corrected? Okay. All right. So we're doing the same thing we did on the last case? Yes. All right. Very good. May I have a motion, please?

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

I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. All right. Next item on our agenda, 3.14, Case 116-26, Fine Respondents, Victory 888, Inc. How about Case 3.13? Did I miss another one? Yes. I did. All right. Let's do 3.13. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Engel. You're welcome.

Case 115-26, find respondents SCI Pelican Walk LLC at 486 Poinsettia Avenue in violation of code for outdoor cafe permit. And issue an order with the compliance deadline and find if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Maddox, you have the floor.

Good afternoon. Kevin Maddox, Clearwater Code Compliance Inspector. This is for case number 115-26 for 486 Poinsettia Avenue. This will be a little bit different than what you've heard before. This has to do with an outdoor cafe seating permit that's expired. In recent months I've been working with a whole lot of business owners who are required to have this permit when you have seating in the right of way owned by the city of Clearwater for liability purposes. Somebody gets hurt and needs to go to the owners. So this is code section 3-909C6 for an outdoor seating cafe permit that is expired. Notice the violation was sent and posted on April 2nd, 2026 compliance date by five, six of 2026 and the green card was not received back. This just shows that at this location here is the seating that does in fact exist and requires a seating permit. This is something they do for an entire year and as soon as about the end of September they have to get it renewed. So this along with about 30 odd other businesses are getting these permits. This just shows the posting. This also shows that as of today that they did not have a permit. This is our Acela computer showing there's no permit yet. And it has to go through an application process with zoning. Today, I took this picture because in the end result, you can either get a permit or remove all of this. It is still in existence. Compliance can be met for the outdoor cafe permit required by contacting the City of Clearwater Zoning. The phone number, apply for the updated or update your permit, have it successfully approved and paid for. Compliance can also be met by removing all tables and chairs and material from the City of Clearwater sidewalk right away. for 115-26 requesting compliance honor before July 24th, 2026, or a fine of $50 per day for each violation that this continues to exist. The $50 is requested instead of the 150 due to the nature of the very small cost of a permit. So $50 was agreed upon. Inspector, have you been in touch with the owners about the permit? I have never gotten anyone to contact me, although I tried. And to open the door, you had to remove this because I put it across the door so that you had to see it. And no one's called you or anything? No, and they have not contacted Zona.

That's unusual. Would that be interpreted to mean that they've not applied for a permit?

Uh, I have had to weekly stay in touch with zoning to say, and there's also a spreadsheet that we communicate with. Uh, and I've said, I'm about ready to go to code board. Have you had any phone call, any activity? No.

Okay.

And they've been renewed year after year, but yet they didn't this year.

Um, this is something that from my understanding, uh, Start it up again to make sure that these are all in compliance and permits. And as I've been contacting every single person on the list, there's a lot of, of course, they don't want to lose their seating. And so they get right on it and get the application filled out and pay the permit, which is very minimal. And the business is open? To my understanding, yes, it is. Okay. How's the announcement? It might be a restaurant that opens at 4 o'clock about the time I'm going home. So I don't see people there, but there's a lot of night restaurants on the beach as well.

Yeah. Well, I'm sure it's still open. They would move everything back inside.

That's the two different ways that you could do it. Yeah.

Okay. I'm sorry. You said something about September?

Once you create a permit. Okay. It's good for a year. At the end of September, they're all required to redo.

So it hasn't gone in violation yet, or it's been in violation since last September?

It's been in violation. I believe the last permit that was at this location was a prior restaurant. And then as they came into this location as a tenant, they never obtained a permit.

Okay.

So you want compliance by July 24th, right?

Yes, which would, in that one month, would give you time to walk in, fill out an application, and pay a fee. Gotcha.

Okay.

So then no matter what, if they get a permit, it's going to expire in September of this year? Is that right? Correct. Okay. Is it the same price no matter what? I don't know.

Let me clarify. No. Okay. Sorry. There is no permit in place now. It's a new business, did not obtain a permit. If they get a permit now, are you saying that it expires in September and they'll have to renew it then? I'm a little confused.

It's not an expiration as such. It's more of a renewal of the current permit.

Okay.

The permit cost is, I believe, less than $100. It's probably $35 to $50.

So much like a business tax receipt, you have an annual renewal? Yes. Okay. And Rebecca has something to offer?

Hi, Rebecca Mulder, not my assistant director of planning and development. I just wanted to clarify if you had any questions specific to the actual outdoor cafe process for getting approval through our planning department. I can clarify any of those questions specific to that process, but it is much like the business tax receipt process in which you have to get permission because it's on our right away. We need to vet that there's insurance for safety purposes. We need to ensure the seating location layout is approved annually and then there is a nominal fee that they pay associated with that.

I have a question. He mentioned that that regulation itself was paused for a while and then now it's picked up?

It's always been a requirement of the city or at least since I think the ordinance went through in 2019, somewhere in that 2020 as a response to allow, um, business owners in the downtown area and beach area that have the ability to utilize the right away during COVID. Wins to provide outdoor seating or spacing things like that. So it was an adopted around that time night 2019 2020 and So it's been over these requirements have been in place and we've worked with the business owners over these last several years and there's been some there's been a lot of outreach over those years to work with those business owners to ensure that they get into compliance and stay in compliance and so the we try not to have to take the business owners to code board and have given more than grace more than enough grace along the last several years we're getting to a place where we've set an expectation of compliance and we're starting to move forward with that if they don't okay thank you yeah thank you

I have a question. Is the permit required of the tenant or the property owner?

Ultimately, it's the parcel owner. I mean, the tenant would be the one applying for it. The parcel owner would be responsible for this failure.

So who gets the fine?

The parcel owner.

And we haven't been able to get a hold of the parcel owner?

Everything's been posted as required, and no, I have not received anything from the owner.

Is there a requirement in the application for the permit that there be some representation that the property owner is aware of the application and that they agree to it? I don't understand. If I'm the restaurant and I apply for a permit, is there anything in the permit that requires knowledge and agreement of the property owner? I don't know.

The answer is yes. The property owner has to sign off.

Okay. And if I'm not mistaken, when you send notice of violation, that goes to the property owner? Yes. And if the property owner gets that and is aware of it, then with that data they can call the tenant to discuss to handle it, correct? Correct.

Ultimately, property owner's responsibility for the activities that occur at the property, regardless of whether there's a tenant or not.

I bring all code cases against the property owner. That's the only one you can get compliance on.

Right.

Understood.

Mr. Saltzman, am I allowed to ask the name of this restaurant? Yeah, I think it was.

It was in the picture. It's Soul Mediterranean, I believe.

Soul Mediterranean.

S-O-U-L. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

I guess just when you sent the violation, did you send it to the address of the violation or the address of the owner?

All violations are sent to the address of the parcel owner in... Pinellas County property appraiser. So whatever's listed for that specific address. In this case, it's a very large building with many tenants, but it still goes to the same address for the parcel owner.

So from what I am gathering, the parcel owner did have this permit prior to this particular tenant being in there, correct?

The prior tenant.

The prior tenant had a permit.

To the knowledge of the owner, I don't know. I'm just stating what had happened a couple years ago from the prior tenant. That's why the seating still remained there, but the new tenant, Sol, did not obtain a permit for the outdoor seating cafe.

Okay, thank you. Just to clarify, if a tenant wants to apply for a permit through the city, the owner has to give written permission on the permit or else the tenant cannot apply?

Yes, property owner's permission has to be obtained. Just like any kind of development application that you have with the city. You've got to have the property owner sign the permit.

Right. 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. 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 July 24, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $50 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. Chair Greg Musil. Second. Chair Greg Musil. All in favor? Aye. Chair Greg Musil. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. I'm next. Chair Greg Musil. Yes, sir. I see that. Item 3.14, Case 116-26, Fine Respondents Victory 888, Inc., at 60 Farhart Street, in violation of Code for Outdoor Storage, an issue in order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Sir, come forward, please. Chair, were you sworn in?

No, I wasn't.

I just came here a little while ago.

If you'll just raise your right hand. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth throughout your entire testimony?

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Can you give us your name and address in relation to the property?

I'm the tenant. My landlord urged me to come in today. I told Kevin I wasn't going to.

Could you just state your name?

Chris Steiner. Christopher Steiner. Thank you. I'm the tenant.

my landlord's up in new york so i just had a couple two questions to get clarification on how to remedy it and make sure i don't get any warnings in the future okay before we go there um we're going to follow our procedure we're going to go in here from the inspector and let him tell us what he knows and then we'll have you back up sir thank you inspector maddox

Kevin Maddox, Clearwater Code Compliance Inspector, case number 11626 for 604 Hart Street. There's one violation for 315-03-B6 outdoor storage. Notice the violation was mailed.

This started in- Inspector, what was that address you just said? 604 Hart Street. Okay.

I started working with this back in January, but the first notice of violation was February 10th of 26. Notice of violation was posted on 4-24 of 26, compliance date by 5-7 of 26, and I'd been interacting with Chris, the tenant, so things had started to progress but then failed, so it continued into a notice of violation. The green card was not received back. This is the backyard of the house. A couple different pictures from April 24th. This is the front of the house where the notice was placed. From the side of the house, there's an empty lot to the left as you're looking at the house where you can view more of this in the back. This was on the 7th of May. Nothing had changed and it seemed to have increased in the amount that I had seen there. This is around the side but this is in the back as of today. If I can get it to click forward. I'm just waiting on the slide.

I don't know if I got to click out of it or what.

Are these pictures from today?

These two are today. OK. I'm clicking, but I'm not getting anywhere.

And that's all in the back of the house?

Yes.

There you go. So we're talking a junkyard here.

It's filled.

Is it an apartment building?

I believe there's three apartments. This appears to... There's a stairwell in the back, and the tenant can tell you otherwise. But I believe there's access to the top floor, which would be the second apartment or third apartment. I just wasn't really sure how many were in there. Compliance can be met by clearing all discarded and unused materials, junk, construction. I don't exactly know what all of it is underneath the sheets of plastic. I had been told that some of it was plants, others. But in the pictures, I can see a lot of just trash and junk that should not be in a backyard and would be considered an outdoor storage problem. Would you trap rodents and other critters? Yes. It would invite quite a bit of problems in the area. Requesting compliance for exterior storage on or before July 24, 2026 or a fine of $150 per day for each violation that they continue to exist. As an added note, I did receive a phone call a couple days ago from the owner who's in New York and I asked him to contact the tenant and turn on the video and see what you saw. As of today, I was on the phone with him. He didn't seem to understand what was truly going on, so I sent him the pictures that I took today in his e-mail today, and he said he was on his way to Florida on a flight to address the issue. I don't know what he was going to do. I just know that he was due to be coming down here to handle it. Well, thank you for sending him the pictures. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Inspector.

Mr. Steiner? What would you like to tell us about all this?

Well, I don't want to say too much. I mean, you could see in the photo there's a shed that's built and another shed that I told Kevin yesterday that, well, I'd updated him. I've been updating him about building these two sheds, possibly a third, under 100 square foot, I understand, to be in compliance with having to get a permit. And, you know, so I updated him yesterday. I had one shed built, and you could see that on the right side of the screen. photo for today and the other one I have the plot laid out. I couldn't get to it building it because of technical issues. I just had a couple questions just for clarification and wanted to know if there's a limit to the number of outdoor items that are in good working order that can be kept outside. I'm mainly concerned about bicycles. They need to be covered so the lubrication doesn't rinse off in the rain. And the ball bearings for the wheels and the crankshaft so that they don't need to be repacked with grease before you ride them again. You can strip the bearings if you don't repack them with grease if they are exposed to the rain.

Understood. Those types of questions as far as what you can do and you can't do are not in our purview. Our job here is to take a look at what's been going on and make rulings on that. In terms of what you can do and what's appropriate and what's not appropriate and what's required for compliance, I would ask you to speak with your code enforcement officer about that to gain an understanding of what needs to be done and get clarity on that. And with that, you should be able to accomplish what needs to be done. Okay.

Mr. Steiner, we're talking more than bicycles here. I have a bicycle. I keep it inside. But we're talking a lot more than bicycles in that yard.

Right. Absolutely. You've got mountains. That's why I got the sheds. Yeah. I have three sheds and one is built or almost built. That's the one you saw. I just haven't put the roof on it. And the back wall.

Then you haven't built a shed. If you have no roof, there's no shed. Why would you not put a roof on it?

In a hurry to build the second shed, but like I said, I had technical problems. A drill bit broke yesterday. These sheds have holes that are misplaced, so you have to drill your own, and my drill bit broke yesterday. So I couldn't build it in a hurry to try to prepare for today's meeting and hopefully get everything squared away, but that's why I'm trying to hurry. You didn't see in the photo of the other plot where I have the shed laid out or the lumber laid out.

We could see that because of everything else.

Oh, I'd be glad to show you, but it's not important. We already seen it. We just saw it. Okay. Well, I guess in my case, since you can't answer my questions, I would just ask for continuance until July 24th and considering that I called again this morning to code enforcement, found there's no limit to the number of, I'd be glad to play the recording The code enforcement's saying there's no limit to the number of outdoor items that can be covered. So I have been in a misunderstanding here with a lot of... I know there's this organization, but I've been in a misunderstanding, and right now it is in a state of upheaval because I was trying to build the sheds in time for approval before this meeting today. And I was also told this morning that there was a case for the coding prohibiting disorderly... the term disorderly and could not provide me the code, I asked the code enforcement officer or inspector to get back to me on that as well as a question of limits to the number of outdoor items. I was told yesterday by Kevin that you can have outdoor table, but this is just one example of trying to understand the code. Kevin told me I could have an outdoor table, just not many of them. I would like to know if I have many bikes. Is there a limit? I asked the code enforcement officer to get back to me. Is it as to the discretion of the inspector or is there a threshold in the code?

Not to interrupt you, but those issues should be addressed with the code enforcement officer and the building permitting It's all good data and I don't necessarily want to cut you short, but those items are not for our review or understanding or anything else. It's our job to look at what you have there and help guide this thing in a direction so that it can get corrected for everybody. Any questions you have about what you can have outside, how many sheds you can have, What's permitted and what's not permitted in that entire process in terms of getting in compliance and understanding that can be gained by talking with Mr. Maddox, your code compliance officer, and then again the building department. So I would steer you in that direction. What the city's asking for here is they're requesting compliance on or before July 24th. The question I have for you is, I think you said earlier, do you think you can get your sheds done by then and get stuff cleaned up? Is that correct?

if I understand how to remedy it, because I do have the bicycles and some other items that are for outdoor use. Clearly, they're for gardening and other things outdoor, other outdoor use that I have that are in good working order and good shape. They're clean. Got you.

So in other words, you can't.

Excuse me?

In other words, you can't comply by July 24. That's what you really say.

I believe I can. I have three sheds. I would like to save the expenditure of time and money so I can understand how to not have a violation again. I just got a seven-day notice from my landlord and he believes that I have been put in violation now, which means that if I get a second, I will not have a second seven-day notice. He can instantly evict me. And so I would like to understand the situation, or if you'd just like to give me until the 24th, and I'll do my best to understand, as I have in the past, because I never would have put things under tarps if I had any suspicion that they would have not been allowed. And I want to know if there's a limit, like I said.

Did the code inspector explain that to you?

Yesterday, again, I was told yesterday that there's a limit to outdoor tables I could have, and those are not covered. So I want to understand what the limit is. And of course it looks awful now. I don't want it this way.

Yeah.

Can I ask you a question?

I'm in a hurry at the moment.

It's an apartment building, and there's multiple people who live in it, or is it just you who lives there?

I'm on the top floor, so my entrance is through the back. I know it's not presentable for guests either, so that's why I don't like it.

Well, if there's many people who live in the apartment building, then everybody should have...

be able to use the backyard is it all your stuff back there i'm uh given the backyard and the neighbor downstairs gets the side here okay so it's all your stuff basically right and you're responsible for all of it essentially correct okay all right fair enough

How many sheds are you planning to build to cover for everything that you have in this backyard?

Well, I have two. I have the one that's built. I have the other one that you might have seen in the photos. I can show you the receipts. The other one is in boxes, mostly in boxes that was propped up against the back wall of the building this morning. So there's two boxes that comes from there.

Now, if I have my dimensions right with these sheds without having a permit, because there's a size, if I'm correct, if I'm wrong, I don't believe all that stuff you have there will fit in those sheds that you plan on putting there. So what are you going to do with the remaining of the things that won't fit in the sheds, or do you plan on putting... X amount of sheds?

Well, either it has to or it gets thrown away or sold, but there is a lot of empty space underneath the tarps because I'm an online merchant and I pull things out to sell and I don't reorganize, so there's a lot of space under the tarps.

But all your sheds don't have rows, right? Oh, yes. All your sheds, they do. A while ago, you said they did.

They do. I just haven't done the first. I haven't completed the first shed, like I said, to hurry to get here.

Then all your sheds don't have roofs. If you haven't completed them.

I may have roofs. All right. Board, I'm going to step in here as chairman.

No, wait a minute. I have a right to ask that. I'm confused. First, you built sheds. Do any of them have roofs?

Well, they have them. I haven't assembled a single shed completely yet.

Then they have them, but they're not assembled.

Right.

OK.

It'll take me about a day and a half to do a shed. to do with the next shed, and then if I need the third one. That's where I was getting at.

Yeah, no sheds, okay.

So three sheds.

Excuse me, Board, I'm going to step in here. I think we've spent enough time on this one in terms of our job here is, I mean, we can ask a number of questions to gain a deeper understanding, but I think we've got enough data here to make motions and rule on this and move on. We have other cases to hear, and so I don't want to step on anybody's toes necessarily, but I think we can move forward.

We just want clarity, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate that.

All right.

Thank you for your consideration.

May I have the first motion, please?

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

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

I move to enter an order required to the respondent in order to correct the violations on or before July 24th. 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 filled, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Can I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you for coming today, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Inspector Maddox, for that one. Next case, 3.15 on our agenda, according to Madam Secretary, has been withdrawn.

Yes. Yes. All right.

Thank you. Number 3.16 on our agenda, Case 118-26, Fine Respondents Brigadoon Clearwater Homeowners Association, Inc. at 4400 Brigadoon Circle. In violation of code for exterior surfaces, an issue and order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Inspector, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, Board. Jared Daniels, Code Inspector for the City of Clearwater.

Is there anyone here to speak on this case?

So we have someone.

No, this was for the, this, I believe you were here for the previous case, which has been with. All right.

Excellent. Well, sorry you had to sit through all that just to find it out, but thank you for coming. I'm glad we made it interesting for you. Thank you for coming.

All right. Good afternoon, board. Jared Daniels.

You will be sent something in the mail, yes. Oh, no.

Good afternoon board. Inspector Daniels code compliance officer for the city of Clearwater case number one one eight dash two six four four four zero zero Brigadoon drive. It's one violation at this property for exterior surfaces. Three dash one five zero two dot B. The notice was sent out 4-8-25 with a compliance date of 5-21-25, and the certified mail receipt came back 5-2-25. If you look in the pictures, just a lot of rotten wood around the gazebo at the pool area. These was the original pictures. This was after the compliance date. They did just get a new HOA president in February. I just found that out once I posted the property. And I talked with the property management company and they're working on getting it fixed. So compliance can be met for the exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structures and decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, and fading of pill and paint. Requesting compliance on or before August 1st, 2026, or a daily fine of $150 per violation if it's not in compliance.

inspector have you uh spoken about your timeline with the uh anybody at the hoa as far as your requested date yes yes well like i said when i talked to the property manager uh yesterday i informed and she said it will be done by the first of august very good questions from the board no all right may i have the first motion please

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

We 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 August 1st, 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? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Item 3.17 has been continued. Item 3.18 has been withdrawn. Item 3.19, Case 121-26, find respondents Ms. Nana Zellick and Marco Zellick at 908 Evelyn Avenue in violation of code for oversized vehicle parking and issue an order with a compliance deadline and find a compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Sir, please come forward. Sir, I believe you were sworn in, were you not? Yes. Okay. Can you give us your name and address in relation to the property?

My name is Philip, and I'm the owner of 908 Allen Avenue. Okay. And last name? Zellick. Thank you.

All righty. Thank you, sir. We're going to hear from the inspector, and then we'll call you back up to see what you have to tell us.

Where is the full screen?

Gotcha. Thank you. Andrew Hobbs, Code Compliance Inspector 1, case number 121-26 for 908 Evelyn Avenue. One violation, Code Section 3-1407A4 for large commercial vehicles. Notice of violation was sent 319. It was lost in transit, so I sent it certified again on 428 as well as posted the property. The original compliance date, 422, was updated to 512. The second certified mail came back 511. This was a citizen complaint. The citizen who filed the original complaint stated that the truck had been parked on the property every night Usually after 6 PM, then the truck leaves early in the morning. The complainant sent pictures on these dates of the truck in the driveway overnight. Those are all listed here. This is the truck in question in the driveway May 4, 618. We have discussed the measurements on the truck. So I had gone out and measured 84 inches from top to bottom is allowable. It was at least 100 inches from the top of the truck when I measured it. This was this morning. The truck in question is right there in the driveway, but this other large truck was there as well. Here's the truck that we are, the one that I measured, the one that's in question. Is that a commercial truck? Yes.

Are they the same company on both trucks?

They are not, um, the United air conditioning truck, um, has been the pictures that were provided by the neighbor. There are pictures of that truck, both trucks in the driveway. Um, so I believe they're both owned by the property owner. Uh, compliance can be met for violation by removing all large commercial vehicles from the property request compliance army floor seven, seven, or find $150 per day. each day the violation exists.

Thank you. Questions for the inspector?

Is this for both trucks or just the first truck?

The two trucks were part of an original case back in December, and then the trucks disappeared. We had actually spoken in person back then. Trucks disappeared, I closed the case, and then all these emails started coming in from a neighbor. So I had to reopen the case, and then our hand was forced after that. I hadn't seen the large truck there in quite some time, and it just happened to be this morning.

And then neighbors say it's primarily after 6 p.m. they're showing back up. Yeah.

Inspector, have you spoken with our representative here today recently? Yeah, yeah, we've spoken. Explain to him what the violation is.

Yeah, I mean, we had spoken about it, and I offered Code 4 as an option to – say his piece and he wanted to come.

Okay, excellent. All right. Sir, what would you like to tell us?

Okay, so I am the owner, I'm not the owner, but my responsibility is the truck in the driveway. There's the forest there. The big truck is responsibility of my brother. So we both live together and we both do air conditioning and The big truck, we know the whole situation started with the big truck. And we removed the big truck from the property. It just happened to be there this morning, but it's not there every day. Inspector said, it hasn't been there for like six, seven months, since December. Last night, my brother got late with the job, so he was forced to park there just for six hours overnight, and he left by seven in the morning. So that truck, I agreed to the inspector, and we removed that truck from the property, the big truck that was there in the... But the other truck is a responsibility by me. So to be able to do this job, I need transportation to work. And I don't have any other choice except to use that truck that the company gave me. Like I said, I talked to the inspector, and the truck I pulled in all the way to my driveway. It's not in front of anybody's house. And I would just like the inspector to mention that I talked to the neighbors who sent the complaints, and we talked about the truck that is there every night, which is mine. And they sent a letter to the inspector that is saying that it doesn't bother them anymore after I talked to them.

I appreciate that. I will tell you that our standard is, and our reference point on all of this, when we look at these things and make whatever decisions we make, is whatever's in the, our reference point is the code, the building code and the state statute and so on and so forth. And so it's our duty and obligation to follow that. I understand that your neighbors may have a problem, but that's not the standard by which we conduct our business. And while I sympathize with you about your work situation and everything else, The code is the code, and it's there for a reason, and so on and so forth. So we're bound to follow that. We have questions or comments from the board?

I think it's in reference. I think the problem is size of your truck. Is that right? And the overall size of it.

Good afternoon, Sarah Green, Code Manager. The parking code does reference for between the principal structure and the right-of-way, so in this case, can you hear me? In this case, between the principal structure and the right-of-way, that would be the driveway. You're not allowed any commercial vehicle which measures excess of 20 feet in total chassis, body length, seven feet in total width and height. So that would be the issue. It's a commercial vehicle over seven feet in height.

So that exceeds those dimensions, okay. You understand that, Mr. Zell?

Yes, I understand. And that's why we wanted to actually measure the truck with the inspector. And the truck has not exceeded the width or either the length. It's only the height. The height. Which that's the reason why, and I talked to the inspector, if we would go all around Clearwater, we can find so many commercial vehicles that are higher than seven feet. I'm not starting anything, any case. But even in my neighborhood, there's been some other situations where people have trucks higher than seven feet. And my truck and I really need to get this sold, because I don't have any other option.

We understand, yeah. But unfortunately, your case this morning is here, not the others.

Right. Correct.

Say that again?

It's your case that's here.

Yeah, it is my case. i'm just trying to solve the problem you know but i'm saying yes so that's still out of bounds for the code right i understand it is yeah that's why in our in our world the i mean we're

As Mr. Engel said, we're bound by the violations, the height of the truck, and that's established, and that's our reference point. Again, while I might sympathize with you, your needs and your work situation, and the fact that you don't have a solution in place, we're still bound to base our decision on what the code says. And the fact that it's now before us, that's what we do.

And until that code is changed, we have no choice.

I mean, I talked to the inspector and I don't know if he mentioned if there's any way to make some kind of, how would I say? Exception?

Accommodation?

Exception, since the truck is not, I understand the truck is, you know, it's not like I'm trying to bring anything huge and I'm trying to do something. It's one foot over, it's about eight feet up, the court is seven feet. So I want to see if there's any, exception that we can do to get this resolved. And I would like, so in order to this, I would like to bring up again a letter that the neighbors will complain to send to the inspector for the truck that's been driving. They said it doesn't bother them and that one is fine.

Understood. And I would defer to counsel, but I don't believe that that is a valid argument for making an exception based on. And in terms of exceptions, I know inspectors have latitude in terms of whether or not they bring a case. In our experience, when inspectors have worked with various property owners in resolving issues, sometimes they will delay bringing the case. But when it's time for them to bring it, then they bring it. And unfortunately, once it's before us and it's on our agenda, it's up to us to make a ruling and deal with the case. Any time for exceptions or doing something before it comes has now passed. And so it's our job to look at this thing and determine whether or not there's a violation there. And then number two, make a ruling on something being done with it. And that's the position we're in as the board. And our hands are tied. We have no latitude on that.

So the reason why I'm mentioning the ladder from the neighbor is because, like I said, there's tons of vehicles in Clearwater Highland 7 feet. And when I say that, I talk to the inspector, and as long as there is no complaint, those vehicles are fine. In my situation, I understand the neighbor complained. And if I talk to the neighbor, if I resolve the problem with the neighbor, and he doesn't complain, can we do any... Was it exception? Exception, because the neighbor is not complaining anymore.

No, sir, we're beyond that.

Mr. Tucker, you're not realizing, you say there's tons of others, probably are, but they're in violation too. That's true. They're just not the force. They just haven't been caught yet, you know. Exactly.

You said you're trying to sell it, right? You said you're trying to sell the truck?

No. No, you're not. The truck I use for work, it's not my truck. It's a company truck. And they let me use it to take it home, since I don't have my own car, to use it as transportation. Can they give you a shorter truck? That's a good question. Ask them.

That's a good question. I think for our purposes, again, I understand that you're looking for an exception, but we're not in a position to do that. The case is before us, and it's like you can be driving down a fast highway where the speed limit is 60 miles an hour. Everybody's doing 80. Everybody's violating, but it's probably only one or two people that get caught. But that does not eliminate the fact that everybody else is in violation. The fact is, your case is before us today, and because of that and because it's on our agenda, we're obligated to make a ruling on it and make a decision on it.

Is it that you need more time to get maybe a different transportation coordinated?

Or with your employer.

Right.

Well, I tried to do, you know, to get a different transportation means to me to buy another vehicle. To go to break of that, which is not an easy, it's not a. You know, I don't know when I will be able to afford that.

Well, I mean, in this situation, that's your only option right now, right? Unless you you're able to remove the truck by July 7th, if you're not able to do that, but you are in the works of getting a transportation coordinated. then maybe as a council we can talk about maybe extending the due date on it, right? But if you're not giving us any options on maybe some type of transportation that you can get other than the truck itself.

Yeah, if you're going to look to sell it, they might want to give you more time, long story short.

Yeah, right.

Yeah, I definitely need more time.

Does your company even know that truck is in violation?

Well, they know, but as you know too, most of the commercial vehicles are higher than seven feet, so we don't have much choice. I don't have much choice to work with them. I'm thankful for them to letting me, you know, using that so I don't have to, I don't know, buy another vehicle to go to bring it back. So company-wise, I can't really do much.

Is there anywhere else that he can park the truck on the property that is... Like sometimes you can do it behind a fence that's like, you know, like if you have an RV that's so big or a boat.

The truck has been parked all the way to my driveway, and it doesn't, like I said, since the length, it's not exceeding, so it's not even blocking the sidewalk.

Well, again, sir, that's not the issue. The issue is your truck height, and that's what we're here to rule on. Yes. I believe Mr. Plum has a suggestion.

I think we move on with a motion for 8-1-2026 for him to give him time to get something sorted out.

Okay. Inspector, do you have anything else to add on everything you've heard before we motion?

No.

I mean, we discussed options. This was kind of like our last meeting. I actually wanted to see if you guys could come up with something. We talked about it. I'm like, can you leave it at Home Depot right there off of Druid? It's off Druid. E-bikes, whatever. We talked about it, and I'm just like, I mean, the code's the code. I don't have anything else to suggest. I'm like, it is what it is when you boil it down all the way. What do you think about extending the compliance period? It's not hurting me. I mean, take what time you need. I don't know. This has all gotten to this point because of the emails that I was getting from neighbors and the complaints.

You said neighbors. Is that more than one neighbor?

They were funneled through one person, but she had stated that she had talked to others, and they had mentioned it, so she became the...

So we don't know if that's true or not. All we know is they came from one source and potentially there were complaints, but that's nothing we can verify or that we can take as fact. I only know what I'm told.

But she did send you a letter.

Yeah, I have emails and pictures of stuff she had been sending me. She's not here, so I can't show up.

But you did receive the letter, like Chelsea was saying, about rescinding?

She had called me and said that. He had gone down and spoke to everybody and said that it was OK. And I'm like, that's great, but I can't just make the truck smaller. A letter doesn't make the truck smaller. Right.

It doesn't meet the standard of compliance with the code, which is our job to determine.

I think he had mentioned taking air out of the tires to make it smaller.

I'm like, as long as it can roll, I don't know.

And maybe you can hide it, like, at Walmart or something, like in the parking lot.

I believe you'll create yourself a different violation for a non-operating vehicle. You're going to have to get a smaller truck.

Board, are we ready to proceed on this?

Yes. All right. May I have the first motion? Mr. Engel? Oh, sure.

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 November 4th, July 7th, 2020. I mean, I'm sorry, August 7th.

1st or 7th?

It's whatever date you want to pick.

August 7th.

Yeah.

That's August 7th. Yeah.

Sure.

OK. Let's see. On the 4th, August 7th, 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.

Can I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Sir, I'm sympathetic to your case. I wish there was more we could do to help you, but our hands are bound by it.

The reason I talk, I thought that you guys had more power to make any decision. We can't change the code. We can't change the code.

We gave you extra time. That's all we can do to try to get straight now.

I make a complaint about every vehicle that is over seven feet. I want each vehicle to be removed from the property as mine will be.

That's not up to us. That's up to the inspector.

Understood. And I understand your concern. But at the end of the day, I don't know that that will move in the direction of solving your situation there.

And you're not going to do that anyway.

Thank you for coming to speak to us today.

We appreciate it.

I sympathize with you. I wish there was more we could do, but we're bound by whatever the code is. If you want that changed, then I would encourage you to talk to somebody who's in a position that can change that code that offers more latitude and helps you with your situation.

Talk to your company about another truck or go buy something else yourself.

Have a good day. Good luck to you, sir. Appreciate you coming in. Agenda item 3.20, case 122-26, find respondents Nick Cheversian and Octavia Cheversian. at 3113 San Mateo Street in violation of code for trailer parking and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this? Inspector, you have the floor.

This property is now in compliance. We're just seeking a declaration of violation.

All right. Very good. Can I get a declaration?

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

I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. All right, that completes our new business items. We're going to move on to old business items. Agenda item 4.1, case 122-25. Consider request by petitioners William Reese at 1390 South Hillcrest Avenue to reduce the fine regarding residential rental business tax receipt, and if approved, issue an order that specifies a fine that includes administrative costs, administration costs, and establish the date payable. The lien will revert. to its original amount. Is there anyone here to speak on this? Yes, ma'am. Please come forward. Okay. Could you tell us your name and your address in relation to the property?

Yes. April N. Cloyd. I am William Reeser's real estate agent and I sold him the property at 1390 South Hillcrest.

Okay.

the rental agent no no i sold him the property and then there was a different agent that handled these rentals so okay and um when was the property purchased property was purchased in 2023 mr reese had plans of spending the rest of his days here in florida unfortunately he had a very ill parent in illinois that he had to go back and take care of they passed away unfortunately and the property um He couldn't have two mortgages, so he decided to rent it. He consulted with the property manager, and the property manager advised that a short-term rental would make him more money and that it was legal. Mr. Reese didn't do his due diligence, which he should have done. and you know was not made aware of the fine i guess there was a citation placed on the door the property manager did not let him know about um when he found out about the violation in march they terminated their agreement um and the tenant was removed and it hasn't been a rental since then um he was only made made aware of the fine um or the per diem you know that had been accrued three days prior to closing on his house, which I sold, which was on the 12th of June when the closing statement came out and there was a $10,000 excess fine. And he was very upset about that. So he's asking for leniency from March 31st to June 15th when the house was sold to reduce that fee.

Would you say your relationship is to this gentleman again?

I'm his real estate agent.

Okay. We have a letter.

We do have a letter. Okay, I was about to say that. Wait a second.

Yes, he's in Illinois still taking care of his other parent. Just checking. To clarify. I'll get up there and talk. Yes, he asked that I be here today.

I'm sorry. To clarify for the record, we have a letter that gives the approval authority to represent the owner. All right, just want that on the record. Okay. So he's in Illinois. Yes. He purchased the property in 2023. Correct. And then he leased it out?

2025.

He purchased it in 2025?

No, he purchased it in 2023. He lived in the property until 2025 when his parent got ill.

And I have a question. Yes. You said that he found out about it in March and had the, unless I misunderstood, and had the tenant removed?

In March 31st, yes. The tenant was removed.

But he was not aware of the lien at that point?

No, he was not aware of the lien until three days prior to closing when the closing statement was released by the title company.

Right, I understand that part. I'm a real estate broker too. Yeah. But the question is, how did he find out that the leasing agent was doing short-term rentals?

I'm not sure if the leasing agent told him after the fact because they were getting complaints or what the situation was. I wasn't privy to that. I just know that he found out in March, and that's when it was terminated, and it was not a rental since the day that he was made aware of that.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. So can you give us the date when he was informed, when he received notice? Do you have any idea what?

He never received any formal notice that was apparently made aware to the property manager, which didn't relay how serious the situation was. And he just said, you know, we can't do short-term rentals, but if we get a longer-term tenant in there, it'll be fine. So they put somebody else in there for a 30-day. Instead of a 1-7, it was more of a 30-day. And then I'm not sure how he was made aware that that was not also allowed. And so March 31st is when the agreement with the...

property manager was terminated and the tenant was removed okay and and forgive my misunderstanding i was thinking in terms of short-term rental but this is for a residential Rental.

Board, I think I can give some clarification on this. I believe when these cases first came to the board, it was a combo short-term rental and lack of business tax receipt for the rental. They did comply with the short-term rental portion, but they never got their business tax receipt. So that's when the fine started was for that specifically, not for both the short-term rental and the BTR. So the fines that you're looking at today are specifically for not having a BTR. A BTR has since been applied for and approved.

Okay. Okay, thank you. so it's that would tell me that if if that btr still in force or still valid that it's in compliance but there was a period of time where it was rented without a business tax receipt and it's for that period of time that business tax receipt did not exist at this line that's fine pertains to okay all righty um Joe, I wish we could get more data on exactly what occurred regarding notice, dates of notice received. What was done to correct it?

As far as the business tax receipt?

Yes.

What address is on file for the ownership of that property? Does anybody have the Pinellas County property?

I don't know off the top of my head, but we would have been sending notice to whatever is in Pinellas County property appraiser.

Sorry, Board. The notice was the address listed was the property address for his mailing address. So all the mail went to the address listed on the agenda.

So he got it versus the property manager.

It looks like most of the mail was returned to me. as unclaimed. I'm going through the file. But that's probably why he didn't get the mails because he had this address as his mailing address.

Well, he would have been, for lack of a better term, double insulated in the fact if the notices went to the property address, you've got a tenant there. Did the tenant forward them? And then you also have the property manager in between that was contributing to and or creating was a part of that violation and so it's it's understandable to me how he might not have received notice however that does not alleviate the fact that you know there was a violation there um and he's aware that the violation is in fact and he wants he's a very much a role follower he just

You know, he wants to try to get a little bit of leniency from that March 31st date until June 12th, or June 15th, rather.

Understood.

So he's asking the lien be reduced from $10,850 to $7,500? Correct.

Well, I have a question about that before we, because I'm looking for, is the lien reduction, is that the amount too, or is that the amount of the reduction?

The $7,500 would be the reduced amount.

I'm sorry.

That would be $3,350.

Correct. Yes. So he's willing to pay the $7,500, but.

He's willing to pay the $7,500?

Well, he's asking if we can reduce it to whatever the March 31st date is until the June 15th date, whatever that.