Municipal Code Enforcement Board - Regular Meeting

The enforcement board is called to order on July 22nd, 19, 2026. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Engel, will you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, sir? Of course.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Please be seated. Agendas of today's meeting are on the wall at 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 who serve voluntarily. It is this board's attention to promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Clearwater. by providing this equitable, effective, and inexpensive method of enforcing certain codes within the city. The board considers new business items in two parts. First, the violation, and then affirmative relief. Formal rules of evidence do not apply. Each side is limited to 15 minutes. The board may grant additional time. All proceedings will be conducted in a calm, civil manner. Individuals who conduct themselves otherwise will be asked to leave. If necessary, they will be escorted from chambers. Now I ask all who plan to speak to 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? Motion to approve. I have a second.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Minutes are approved. Next on the agenda are new business items. Our first case, 3.1, is continued to September. Next agenda item, 3.2, is also continued to September.

Oh, we don't have that. 3.4 is continued from March. Oh, I see. Yeah, I see it now.

It's continued from March but continued to September 23rd. I got you.

All right. I'm with you now.

3.3 is continued from April 22nd, case 84-26. Fine respondents Mary G. Realty Incorporated at 490 Mandalay Avenue in violation of code for permits and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Inspector Reese? Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, cohort. I'm Inspector Kat Reese for the City of Clearwater. This is for 490 Mendeley Avenue, case 84-26. And what's going on? It's going slow today. So we have one violation of this property for a section four dash two zero three dot eight dot one. Uh, no person shall commence any construction, demolition, modification or verification of a building or structure without first obtaining a building permit. This is specifically for the deck that was installed in front of the, uh, along the storefronts on the property. There were multiple violations. This is a pretty, one of the old cases began on September 6th of 2024. Uh, We gave multiple compliance dates for this property. This is a posting of my notice of violation back in September. And this is the Google Street View. So what we're talking about today, I know you can't see it here, but it will be the deck along all of this side of the property on the south end. These are the original photos taken from the previous inspector for the deck that was installed.

There it is.

Oh, okay. I was beginning to wonder.

I have had communication with the owner. I have gave him multiple extensions to get this permitted. He had to speak with zoning. It will not meet zoning. He needs to resubmit plans so that it meets zoning so it can properly get permitted or remove it altogether. Reason being it's just too high and it is a hazard for citizens shopping there. So these are just updated photos that I take in June 6th. and deck was still there. At this point, I had spoken with multiple contractors trying to aid them and guide them so that way they can get with zoning. And these are my updated photos from today. The deck itself is starting to peel on the sides. It's become more of a hazard. I've had workers there very happy to see me moving forward with the case because they are concerned as well. So right now, The permit that they applied for is still in revisions needed. The reason for that is because it just can't get approved. They attempted for the flexibility. It's just not an option at this time for them. It will not be approved through zoning. I do have those emails if you all wanna see from zoning that that is what they had been told. I've had no more communications since then. Compliance can be met by obtaining an issue permit is approved through zoning and completing said permit with inspections. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before August 24th, 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?

I've got at least one or two myself. Yep. So we know it was built without permits. You said they applied for a permit, but then you also said that they looked at getting a variance and it's not going to meet the requirements for a variance. So does that mean the only option is to remove it or get rid of it? I know we're off on the side here a little bit in terms of a violation, but I'm just curious as to what the path forward is, whether it's just they're not going to be able to get a permit because they can't get a variance and it's got to be removed.

It doesn't necessarily have to be removed. It's the higher portion that needs to be lowered. And then they would just have to submit those revisions that is keeping that permit stuck and revisions needed. Once that is done, they can move forward with the issued permit. They just can't keep it as it is today.

Gotcha. When was the last time you spoke with the owner?

He came in the office... on april 6th of 2026 and then from at i've had several conversations after with contractors to guide them exactly what was needed and you know i referred them to zoning and zoning took over from that point and and then you know it's just not going to be issued the way it is today inspector i just have one question do you know how long that i'm permitted uh deck has been there The initial inspection began September 4th of 2024. It went in prior to that date because it was a stop work order. So the work was already done. So we're just requiring after the fact permit. Correct. Thank you. You're welcome.

And then I just noticed it looks like it goes across several businesses.

It does, but it is the owner owns the entire parcel. So he is ultimately responsible for it.

And have any of the business owners come out and talk to you about it? I'm wondering if they're running into trouble with it.

Yes, I've had employees come and, goodness, you're doing something. I'm surprised no one has gotten hurt already with the way it is. So they are happy that this is being presented today.

Looks like someone just built that over a weekend. It looks very homemade to me.

What were they trying to attempt to do?

To extend the pathway along the storefronts, I believe, but it's just not meeting code.

Any other questions from the board? And I have a first motion of violation, please.

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

I have a second.

Second.

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

Did we get an amount from the inspector? $150,000. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before August 24th. Well, I think that's when they had to have the permit and then have six months to do the revisions after that. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

May I have a second, please? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Thank you, Inspector Reese. Next case, 3.4 on our agenda, continued from April 22nd, 2026, case 87-26. Fine respondents Gratis Filius Enterprises, LLC at 1700 Gulf Bay Boulevard. In violation of code for unsafe building, an issue and order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Larson, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, code board. My name is Inspector Larson. City of Clearwater. This is one we're going to revisit. If you remember, this is 1700 Gulf Bay coffee shop that was an abandoned construction site. You know, property maintenance requirements. It was considered a nuisance. And the board gave them 60 days. If you remember, we were trying to give them six months. and their two lawyers stood here and, oh, we only need 60 days. Well, they're not finished, but they have made progress. So I don't know if you all remember where it is. Here it was when it was an abandoned construction site. Piles of dirt, various. Okay. Again. And this is back in March. So here now in April, Apparently when the new contractor started working on this thing, it had been leaking. It wasn't built to the plans. They actually had done construction without having inspections along the way. So it was a really big problem. You see that all the wood is rotted. They had to replace everything. It was a big job. This is the guy that told us he'd be done in 60 days, and that's what the board gave him. Windows torn out. All right, now this is yesterday. They put the building back together. You see the poor driveway. They put down asphalt for a parking lot.

Big difference.

There's one I wanted to show. Actually, if you look on the right side here, they've got drainage areas and they have actually put sod in. They've really come a long way, just not where in the timeframe that the board gave them. Like I say, it was an abandoned construction site. The permits had expired, but now they're back in the game. The permits are good. The contractor has been changed. Construction needs to be completed. Like I say, the board gave them 60 days. It didn't happen, but I've gotten a bunch of excuses, something about the right-of-way between the pizza place and them driving through the parking lot over to 19 and all that. There seems to be some issues going on there. We were asking originally for October 22nd, which was six months. So I'm not sure what you all want to give them now. They are doing work on it. And their work is being inspected. It is professional. And they are passing inspections. So I think they bit off a little more than they thought they were going to at that point. Like I say, they were like 60 days.

So you're talking 90 more days, 90 days plus.

I think that's reasonable. What is it now? It's July, August, September, October. Yes, sir. I think another 90 days. They should be pretty wrapped up by then.

Okay. Is that it? Yes, sir. Okay.

What's the violation at this point?

Well, they didn't meet the 60 days that the board gave them.

Yeah, but is it unsafe now or not? It's not completed. Is it unsafe?

It's not in compliance because it's not completed, which that was what we gave them time to complete the job.

Would unsafe be something different other than, I mean, we're, I don't know that unsafe is germane.

I'm just reading from what it says here, violation of the code for unsafe building. Oh, it was unsafe.

It was an abandoned construction site, so at that point it becomes a public motion.

Okay, but it's not abandoned now, so what is the violation?

They just didn't do it in the time that you gave them. So what I think now is, I mean, I'm not sure how you handle it, but.

So can we put in a motion to extend?

Well, but the city's request is requesting compliance by October, which is another three months. And that, based on the progress that we can see in the photos, my personal opinion is that they're well on their way and if they keep going the way they're going they're going to be done well before then they are you know they're they're very very close that they've got concrete board and putting down sod and everything they're very close and october is generous and it kind of forces them back to the original timeline i agree with the inspector and that they may not have realized what a task they were taking on if they you know were representing the owner and not the actual contractor but

Well, I think unsafe would still be in place because it's still under construction. So to me, it would be considered unsafe because it's not where it needs to be.

Well, not every construction site is unsafe by virtue of being under construction.

But it's unsafe because they did not meet the 60 days.

The condition is not relevant because they didn't come in compliance to your order. Right, because they're not in compliance. So it doesn't matter what it currently is. Until they're done, they're not in compliance unless you change your order. Right.

Right. So what I'm saying is. Right.

You can extend. Right. Right. Their condition doesn't have to be unsafe to still not be in compliance. That's what I'm saying.

I think we just need to put in a motion for extension.

Hold it. Let's get to the question before we get to the motion. Mr. Salzman, with them not being in compliance, would there be any fines accruing, original fines, $150 a day?

Have we hit that date? No. The 60 days have been.

This case was originally presented to the board in April.

continued it basically after hearing it you've continued it to today for an action to happen today so there's no fine in place there's no fun i'm not all right thank you and i think that's basically can we go back to your request on the screen in terms of what what the city is asking I think the city is asking for compliance by October. And if it doesn't meet compliance by October, that's when the fines start. So this is what they're asking for.

Yeah, the 250 starts then. I wasn't concerned about the previous 150 a day.

I think we gave them more time to finish. I don't think we made any motions regarding any fines. So there have been no fines assessed to date. And the city is requesting compliance by October, which seems... reasonable to me, unless the board has other opinions or wants to offer something else.

Are we just going to give an extension?

Well, it's not really an extension. They're asking for a motion that they have to finish by October or then the fines start.

I understand. But they are really working to get it done. It's drastic. I agree. I go with Board Member Gerd that I think it would just give a little bit more time with taking a really drastic action. They're really showing good faith, I think.

I would say that an extension is implied in the motion in that we're not giving them 30 days. We're giving them 90 days. And that reeks of extension to me in terms of the way it's worded. So I'm good with the city's recommendation unless somebody else has it.

There's a lot of activity and a lot of discussion going on in the community here up here.

Thank you.

I think it is too much time. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Secretary. All right. Sorry, was there any other discussion from the board or questions?

I think it's just too much. I think 60 is more. But that's just my opinion.

That's what the city is asking for. I'm inclined to just give it to them and let them finish. I mean, it's been a lot of work, I know, to clean that thing up. And they're making good progress. And I don't necessarily want to be a guy to penalize that or penalize that.

What do they need to do to be penalized?

Say again? What do they need to do to be compliant? They need to finish their project and get a certificate of occupancy, I would assume. Final inspection certificate of occupancy.

Right. Well, you had no way of seeing inside how far along they've gone.

I have been inside, not recently, but... when they were tearing it all apart. But they're passing inspections. I have co-workers that have been doing electrical inspections, plumbing, various things, siding. So they are passing their inspections.

I was just wondering how far along it is inside to warrant 90 days. That's why I'm asking.

Mr. Gary?

Yeah, Kevin Garriott with the building department. Pardon me, I was part of the noise there in the back as we were talking with council as to where we are on this. So let me try and explain a little bit. The building and site were unsafe because it had a permit and it got so far along in construction as you see. Let's see, I don't know if I can find the pictures on here. back up in these days here, even before that, we were looking at this. This is when we brought it to you two months ago. This is the way it looked. So we declared it unsafe. We, at that point, were suggesting six months for completion. And with their help, they being the the neighbor and the property owner of this property. They were both here. And they thought they could be done within 60 days, I believe. So the board at that point decided, well, let's just check on them in 60 days and see where they are. So this is really just kind of a stop along that way. It isn't like a new hearing. It's continuation of that hearing two months ago with the progress that we're seeing that now looks like, that's a good one there, to see that they've made this good progress. But they are not done. It looks like they probably will be, but who can predict the future? Any questions on that? Does that make any sense at all to you all on the board?

The site was unsafe in the condition it was in before, but now they've gone ahead and they've done progress with their permits and produced the building that we're seeing in these pictures. and now i guess the question i'm trying to wrap my head around i'm sure the board is too is is this truly an unsafe site at this point or is this now just a construction site that is just going through the building permit process where as long as they stay compliant with the timelines and the provisions of the florida building code everything is okay now. That's just what's going through my brain. That's a good question.

Yes, yes. I mean, there is good progress. Have you spoken to the owner and kind of gotten gauge of when it will be, when they feel it will be in completion?

I spoke to general contractor on site. about a month ago, and he was complaining about the access from the pizza place. And he claims he's going to be finished in a reasonable amount of time, but he didn't give me an exact date. Construction's not that way, as you know. And that was a month ago. Yes, sir. And that was a month ago. Yes, sir. Yeah, there were people everywhere. They hadn't poured the concrete yet. They didn't have the... Asphalt down, it was still dirt. But since then, we do see progress.

Is it still unsafe, though?

They have put a fence up around it, which is great. Basically, the unsafe, what we were calling it, was an abandoned construction site. We weren't specifically saying it's unsafe, but that's encompassed in abandoned construction sites. So no, it's not an abandoned construction site at this time. They are working on it. But I believe that our goal is to make sure they finish. And with the track record of abandoning the job, now they've come back to the job. Well, we don't know if they're going to finish. I mean, we hope they are. It appears that way. Basically, it's kind of a progress report, I feel, that what we're here for today.

But isn't that governed by building construction permits?

The Florida building code definitely governs like construction sites and timelines for how long a permit should be approved and how long a construction site should be active. It covers all those things.

I think you might be missing that it was abandoned for like two years.

I hear that. I definitely hear that. My thought process is that I understand it was abandoned and that's not a good thing. We certainly don't want to see that. However, that is no longer the case and the unsafe portion of this building is no longer applicable because it's no longer really unsafe. So I'm just wondering at this point, you know, would it be better for staff just to let this go through the Florida building code process? And if they don't follow the process and their permit, I guess expires for lack of a better word than at that case, we would maybe take this one back. it seems like there's nothing really wrong at this point. And I hate to say that we're having this conversation in public, but I mean, I wasn't really aware of this case because it was continued since before I was doing this board. But just when I'm thinking through this logically, it's like, well, it just seems like it's a construction site now.

And that would take us back to where we were three years ago. It looks somewhat similar to this. And there are, It was falling under then the time frame of the Florida building code. And all at once it stopped. And it sat there, and it sat there, year after year. And the wood rotted away. It all had to be replaced. And so we would be back at that point. Yes, that could happen.

OK.

But it is an active construction site at the moment.

They have a permit.

Yeah, so I think that giving them the original October date would be reasonable.

That seems fair to me. I mean, is there any objection from the board on the October date? No, no.

I just don't think that there's a violation that they need an extension for.

I think we gave them an extension and they have to bring it back to us because we gave them an extension and they're not finished.

An extension for what? They're not completed with their construction. That's governed by another... body that's not that's not our place but we gave them 60 days to finish completion of construction we're just looking at is it safe or is it not safe no that's not the only thing we're looking at what we're looking at is i think we had an original motion back in the day that they were in violation we gave them

we offered them like six months to get the thing done, and they wanted less time than that. So we gave them 60 days, and now we're revisiting that and saying, okay, they're making good progress. The city's asking us to make a declaration that if they're not done in three months, then the fines will start accruing, and that sounds entirely reasonable to me.

I think we should just get an extension. I agree. Let's just get it.

All right. So can we have your order request back up on the screen, Mr. Larson? And then I will request a motion. 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.

I have a second.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? No. Nay. I'd like to poll the board to make sure we have a quorum. I think you have five to two. Okay, motion carries. Can I have a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before October. 22nd, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $250 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

I may have a second.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Aye. Motion carried. Thank you, Inspector Larson.

Thank you.

Next on our agenda, number 3.5 is continued to August 26. Number 3.6, case 130-26, find respondents Edward and Alana Papadomi at 1316 Pierce Street in violation of code for residential grass parking. And issue an order with a compliance deadline and find if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Sir, would you please come forward?

Board, I'd like to say that the property has come into compliance. The city system requested declaration of violation. We just haven't ever spoke to them before.

OK.

So they showed up.

Fair enough. I think since they're here, we at least owe them an opportunity to. Sir, would you give us your name and address for the record? My name is .

I'm sorry, can you say that again?

Closer to the microphone. Edward Papadami, Edward Papadami. Okay. 1655 Sharonway.

Can you please speak closer to the mic?

1655 Sharonway. Thank you, sir.

You said that you were asking for a declaration of violation? Yes, sir. Okay. Sir, do you admit or deny the violation?

Yes, sir.

Do you admit or deny the violation?

I admit they were parking over there. I told them 20,000 times, so I think they're going to have to do it. They're going to have to do this anymore.

I'm sorry, sir. I'm going to ask you to come closer.

I think they're going to have to do this anymore because they're going to have to get out.

Excuse me, he has some health issues. He has a Parkinson's.

I understand. I just want to be able to understand what he's saying.

I spoke to my tenants and they say they're not going to park there anymore.

Okay. So the question we have for you is do you admit to the violation or do you deny it?

I don't deny it. I saw the buck in there. Okay. But that's just be fixed, which is not a big deal to fix that one. Thank you.

Counsel, did we take that as an admission?

He said he does not deny it.

Did we really need that when there's a declaration?

Well, if we're going to make a declaration of violation, I mean, you know, per our— I mean, you need to make a finding that he was in violation and he corrected it.

So I would take it as your normal— I didn't take that as an admission.

Okay. Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. If there's anything else to add, we'll call you back up. Thank you so much, everybody. Thank you, sir. Before Inspector Dixon starts, my understanding from what the owner of the property said is that it's unclear whether there was an actual admission of violation or not, so I would like to give the inspector the opportunity to present whatever data he has, if he wishes.

The violation's in compliance.

Okay.

The problem is, is that he said that there was a violation at some time, but it doesn't say when the time period was. So was it after the notice? If it wasn't after the notice, then you can't find a violation that was corrected. So we still need to hear when the violation occurred.

Right. That's what I'm saying. So I would ask that if the inspector has the data and could present us the data so that we can actually make sense of it and understand, make a determination of a violation, then good. If not, then we'll have to see where we go from there. Over to you, Inspector. OK.

This is Vicky Seda's case. I did update the slides, but of course, I'm not Vicky. I'm Greg Dixon, the co-compliance inspector of the city of Clearwater. This is case 130-26 for 1316 Pierce Street. It's not letting me take it to full screen. There was one violation here for residential grass parking. Notice of violation was sent in April with a compliance date of April 19th. The certified mail receipt was returned back to the office on April the 14th. Here's grass parking in March. Here's grass parking in June. It's the red car there on the right. It's the building that's on the right side of the picture there as you see it. Here's another picture of grass parking in June. Compliance date was in April. Here's a picture of July. Here's the posting for the notice of hearing. And this is this morning. I didn't see any vehicles parked in the grass. They were in the driveway. Compliance could be met for grass parking by parking only one vehicle on the grass parallel and adjacent to the driveway. So we are requesting a declaration of violation for this property.

OK. In our case, that would be just the first motion, and you're not asking for any fines or anything else? No, sir. Okay. All right. That would be one of our other motions other than our stance, if it's okay. So that works. All right. So does the board have any questions of the inspector before we proceed?

No.

All right. Do we want to speak any further with the, I think we've gotten what we need from the property owner unless somebody else wants to ask questions for him? I do not. All right, I think we're ready for declaration of violation.

Mr. Chairman, 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 a violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist.

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Sir, thank you for coming to speak today. Thank you. We have issued that there was a declaration of violation and that there is no fine imposed. But you do have rules that govern any future parking. Thank you, sir. All right. Moving on. Agenda item 3.7 has been withdrawn. Agenda item 3.8, case 132-26, find respondents Chandra Ramnareen at 1475 Park Street in violation of code for exterior surfaces and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector, you have the floor.

Afternoon Board, Greg Vixenco, compliance suspect is case 132-26 for 1475 Park Street. There's one violation at the property for exterior surfaces. Notice the violation was sent out in February. There's a compliance date in March. The green card was received back in the office in March 6th. This is property. It's a duplex. It's just got some exterior surface issues. There's a big hole in the carport there. Here it is in May. And here it is this morning. It's basically in the same condition as it was when it was cited. So compliance can be met by replacing any defective structural and decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, faded and peeling paint, and rotten wood. The city would like to request compliance on or before 8-22-26 or impose a fine of $150 per day per violation if compliance is not met.

Thank you. Board, any questions?

Have you spoken to the owner?

No, the green card was returned, but nobody's reached out to us.

And you have a thing posted? I just didn't see the picture of the thing.

They signed for the mail.

Oh, OK.

So they got the receipt. You did post the property, I presume?

No, because the mail that we sent certified to sign for. All right.

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

I move to find a respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the motion. violation on or before August 22nd, 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 a lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such a lien.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye. All opposed? Item 3.9 on our agenda is being continued to August. Item 3.10, Case 134-26, Fine Respondents Deborah Hicks at 1308 Roosevelt Avenue in violation of Code for Exterior Surfaces and Community Garden Maintenance, an issue and order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Dixon, you have the floor.

Inspector Dixon, Koka Pawnee, suspected for the city of Clearwater. This is case 134-26 for 1308 Roosevelt Avenue. There are two violations on the property, one for Code Section 3-2602 for operational requirements for community gardens and Code Section 3-1502 for exterior surfaces. They have come into compliance for the operational requirements for the community garden, so I'll just be asking for a declaration of violation for that. I don't know if you want to knock that out at the beginning or wait until the end.

If they're in compliance on that, we could go ahead and address that separately and ask for a declaration of violation. And that was for which?

For community cards. Operational requirements for community cards.

Okay. Somebody give me a...

A declaration of violation?

Yes, 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.

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

All right. The violation for the exterior surface still exists. Notice went out in April with a compliance date in May and the certified mail receipt was received back in May. This is the community garden that I brought last month that had some trash and debris. The grounds are cleaned up, it's organized, but this shed still needs some attention. So that's what we're talking about here. I just need the front of that shed to match the other three sides. This is what it looked like the day that it was sited. Here it is today, the sun is shining in my eyes, so kind of a bad picture, but it's still in the same condition. The other three sides are in compliance. So compliance can be met for the exterior surfaces by finishing the front side of the shed, attach panels to make the front look uniform with the rest of the shed, and apply paint to match. The slide's not catching up, but I'd like compliance on it before September 1, 2026, or impose a fine of $150 a day. September 21?

September 1, yes.

Oh, there we go. All right, good. It's always a little bit easier memory-wise with everything going on to be able to see it, read it, if need be, and see things now. Thank you. All right. Board, have any questions?

I do. I just noticed there's a lot of debris around that building. I thought that was part of it.

There's a couple of things leaned up against it, but it's not near what it was before.

Sure.

We consider it in compliance.

Okay.

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

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

Do 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 September 1st of 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclosure, collect, or settle such lien.

Let me have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Thank you, Board. Item 3.11 on our agenda has been withdrawn. Item 3.12, case 136-26, find respondents. Forgive my pronunciations here if they're not good. at 2036 San Marino Way South in violation of code for exterior storage 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 one will actually be a declaration of violation. They did come into compliance for the exterior storage, and they've been in compliance since about the 13th. But I just want that declaration to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Very good. Thank you. If there are no questions from the board, then I'll entertain a motion.

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.

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Inspector Kazmier?

Good afternoon, Board. Daniel Kasman, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater. I don't know if you, I'm sorry, do you need to declare this one before I jump on it? Yeah, let me enter it into the record.

Next on our agenda is Item 3.13, Case 137-26, Fine Respondent South Florida Homeowner Solutions, LLC at 2048 Loma Linda Way South. In violation of code for exterior surfaces, an issue in order with compliance deadline and fine of compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Kazman, it's all yours.

Daniel Kazman, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is case number 137-26 for 2048, Loma Linda Way South. There's one violation here for Code Section 3-1502B for exterior surfaces. These are the dates the notice of violation went out with the compliance date. There was also an affidavit of posting and a notice appearing for today's hearing. This is 2048 Loma Linda Way South. This is in the Valencia Park neighborhood, if you've ever been up that way. I've gotten some complaints of the property, but then I also had noticed there were some issues with the exterior of the home itself. As you can see up top, there's some rotting fascia boards, but also some chipped and peeling paint on the walls below, though there is a lot of greenery in the way. This is right below the window in the front of the home. Went back after initially looking at it, having sent a courtesy letter, but there were still issues at the home. The same things had not been addressed. There's a better look at that wall down below. This was the day of my posting after the notice of violation was sent out and I did not get the green card back. The property wasn't still in the same state. And then this was the notice of hearing for today's hearing. Again, the property wasn't still the same state. And this was today, this morning. Let me know if you want me to go back to anything if it's tough to see. So this is, again, the same wall. If you notice the left, that teal wall is chipping and peeling still. The pillars out front still have the same issues. The boards up top are still rotten. So compliance to be met for exterior surface by repair, any damage to the exterior, cleaning the exterior where necessary, and repainting whether it's chipped or peeling paint. And I'm requesting compliance on it before August 22nd, 2026. And we're fine with $150 per day for each day the violation continues to exist.

Thank you. Questions from the board?

Just have you talked to them?

I have talked to them. I think there's some issues happening, possibly with foreclosure, which is I don't know if they're willing or able to do the repairs, but I had to go forward with the cases anyway, regardless of what was going on.

In four months when you first went out there, took the first picture, nothing's been done at all?

There was another violation for exterior storage, which the owner did take care of, but I don't know if they were, like I said, willing or able to actually work on the building itself with the other things going on.

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

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

I have a second.

Second.

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

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

May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Next on our agenda is item 3.14. It's been withdrawn. Number 3.15 has also been withdrawn. Number 3.16 has been withdrawn. Case, agenda item 3.17, case 141-26, fine respondents, FTMC LLC at 1627 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, in violation of code for signage without permits, an issue in order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Bernhardt, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, board. Steven Burkert, sign inspector for the city of Kilwater. This is case 141-26 for 1627 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. There's one violation regarding code section 4-1002, signage without permits. Signage has been located, placed, directed, constructed, altered, or extended without a permit. I mailed notice of violation, certified mail. The certified mail came back unsigned. The original letter went out January 14th, 26. I posted the property on April 23rd, 26, and compliance date was May 21st, 26. So, the sign we're talking about is is this one above the entrance. And the complaint originally was about multiple signage, including on the side of the building. That's all been removed. But this is a painted sign. This is actually, in particular, a film that's applied to the surface directly. It still requires a permit. Although there's no hardware involved, it's more about So the sign appears to be larger than 24 square feet. And I spoke with property owner, not with the property owner, with the business owner, I'm sorry, already in October 25th. And he mentioned that he wants to install a wall sign there, a permanent sign. And then it went back and forth. So I said he either should get a permit for the painted sign or remove it or having a permit for a wall sign which he wants to install there. But again, I spoke with him on several occasions. In March 26, he said that he has a sign in production that's in Romania, the production facility. And again, I spoke with him on multiple occasions. Again, there's nothing being done. And that's... On July 20th, the sign is still there. There are no permit on files, no applications for any, neither for the sign he plans to install nor for the painted sign. So compliance for the unpermitted sign can be met by removing the sign or obtaining a permit. Requesting compliance on or before. August 22nd, 26, the violation continues to exist. Imposed a fine of $150 per day. Each day the violation continues to exist.

Thank you. Any questions? Ford, do you have any questions?

I have one. Can you make it clear for me what you said about Romania, a sign being made in Romania?

Yeah, I mean, he wants to install an illuminated wall sign, a professional-made sign, and he said he has it in production in Romania, in Europe. I thought I heard you right. That's what he told me again. I was wondering. He still needs to apply for permit first because I told him that sign he has in production may not even be allowed to install. So that's still in question. And I haven't seen any plans or anything of that, so.

Yeah, I was just wondering if he's heard of, we do make signs here. Right, right.

Okay, in Florida, okay. I don't know how long the shipping takes, but I can imagine that the case is open for a long time now, so.

I have a question. Did he mention he was able to produce a contract or something that says that there is a sign being made in Romania? No. No.

inspector burkhardt i wouldn't expect you to speak for the building department but i would imagine based on our experience the proper sequence would be to submit for a permit and submit whatever sign he's going to put up there to make sure it's approved before he buys it installs it so that it meets all the florida building codes etc etc would you have any disagreement with that

No, I agree. I explained everything to him. I said he needs to get a contractor, even if it's, I mean, he can have it in production, but the installation needs to be done by a licensed contractor. So they need to submit a permit for that. Right. I hope they get it right in Romania.

And I believe the building code also would, I'm sorry, I stepped on your toes there. That's all right. I would imagine that the building department might have something to say about what's or the Florida building code might dictate what is acceptable in terms of size and design and everything else. So, okay. All right, any other questions from the board? I have a first motion, please.

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

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

We have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Next case, item agenda 3.18, case 142-26, find respondents MCT-202206, LLC, triple key LLC at 810 South Missouri Avenue in violation of code for signs attached to trees, temporary signs, and issue an order of the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Sir, please come forward and give us your name. I'm not sure he was sworn in.

I'm not sure he was here to be sworn in.

Were you sworn in, sir? Yes, when I stood up in the beginning, when everybody stood up. Okay, good. Sorry. You're good. Thanks. Always nice to make sure.

I'm Jason Martin. That's my business, 810 South Missouri, but my home is 1621 Golf Boulevard, so I don't know which address you're wanting.

All right. And you are the, that is your business that's there?

Correct. Business was actually started by a friend of mine, Noah Curry.

Okay. And I'm going to, I don't want to necessarily cut you off too quickly, but our process here is that we want to know who you are. Oh. And then we're going to hear from the inspector. And then what is your relation to the property? You're simply, are you the owner?

I'm the owner of the business leasing the building.

Okay. But you're not the owner of the property?

No.

Okay. So I'm going to ask counsel. if a tenant of a property is authorized to speak with us or testify.

Well, the only concern is that any violation you find is against the property. Precisely. So do you have the authority to act on behalf of the owner?

I do not, because I'm just a leaseee of the property. But I have information that I don't know if it's even going to be a violation because, like I said, the signs have been removed. I know who put them up. They've been taken down. The business has changed.

Can you step a little bit closer? Yeah. I can't hear you.

So there's a whole bunch of, like, business was started under a different business. I have it now. It's under a different business. I'm the leaseee. The signs that were there are no longer there. That's why I'm coming here.

Are they in compliance?

No.

All right. If there's no objection, I'd like to go ahead and hear from the inspector. Since this gentleman is here, I'd like to afford him a bit of time to address the issues for our clarification. But we know at the end of the day that the violation is against the property, not the tenant or vessel. Inspector Burghardt.

Should we ask the tenant to amend over to deny?

He can't amend or deny. He doesn't own the property. He doesn't represent the property owner. Okay, gotcha.

Stephen Burghardt, site inspector for the city of Clearwater. This is case 142-26 for 810 South Missouri Avenue. There's one violation regarding Code Section 3-1806A, Temporary Sign Criteria and Limitations. The notice of violation was mailed March 10 of 26. Certified mail was not signed. That's why I posted the property on April 7, 26, compliance date April 17, 26. There are multiple temporary banner signs installed at the property. One here at the trees. The picture is from February 4th of 26. That was a violation in itself. We don't allow any signs attached to vegetation and trees. There is a banner sign installed at the building. Actually, three banner signs. As you see, one is already falling down here. There's a different one on the side, and there's one on the top. We only allow one banner sign per parcel for up to 30 days per calendar year. So it's just a temporary sign solution. It should be there before. Business installs a permanent sign. For example, it's a temporary solution. It's not a permanent sign That picture is taken in April 17th One then has already gone out of it fell down. The other is half done is still one banner installed It's in June It's back up

the batter's back up on this.

Yeah, it's probably falling down. I don't know. But again, it's still not in compliance as of today. Actually, it went out today and there's still batters installed.

So just for clarification, that's where Marco's Pizza used to be, right?

Yes, there was previous Marco's Pizza.

It's unfortunate they're not there anymore.

That's why we're better.

Compliance can be met by removing all banner signs. Again, requesting compliance on or before August 22nd, 26th. If a violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day. Each day a violation continues to exist. Any questions? Inspector, the banner signs, I didn't know.

They're only good for 30 days.

They're only good for 30 days, and one is the maximum per parcel that can be used. And just one. So it's too many, and they're just there for long, for many months. So it's not some business won't use them instead of installing a permanent sign, but it's not attractive. And as you see, it's not a good solution because they fall down. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Have you spoken with the owner about the issues?

Again, I never had any contact with the owner. It was only through the posting. They didn't sign a mail. I couldn't get hold of the owner before.

Have you spoken with the tenant?

No, I met him the first time today. Any time I came out and posted it was closed, the business, so I had no contact with him. okay and that first uh on your first picture i couldn't hardly see it's tied between two trees two palm trees okay i think it's meanwhile it fall down and just hanging on one tree but it's not really okay not very very good solution all right um

Before I ask for a declaration of violation, I think we could go ahead and do that, but I would like to hear from the tenant if there's no objection. I think it might help give a little more understanding regardless of how the fact that we have a motion to do and it's against the owner and not the tenant. I would like to see what data he has to offer if there's no objection. Yeah, I'd like to hear it. Sir, would you come for us and just share with us briefly what you know? Yes, sir.

Like I was saying earlier, Noah Curry is a friend of mine. He was the one that started the business back in October. He's the one that put the temporary signs up. Since October, he owns a business and also a pizza place in Knoxville, Tennessee. I've known him from Knoxville, Tennessee. I also own Max Results Physical Therapy. So him being my friend, he was like, hey, do you want to just take this business over? He got engaged. His fiance doesn't want him traveling as much as he was before. So I said, sure, I'll take the business over. So as of January 1, I took the business over. As far as today, there are no signs on the vegetation. There is a sign in that corner lot, but that's the 7-Eleven sign. It's not a pizza sign. So it actually has 7-Elevens. That's not our sign. We do only have the one sign, which is temporary because we're waiting on the sign company's sign code, and then we're supposed to get the permitting and get us a backlit LED sign. sign so we're using it as a temporary sign but the other ones have been taken down so there is no other signs there the only one we have right now is the one that's up on top the the gentleman that you referenced noah curry right is he the owner of the building or was he just no he was just he was the leasee of the llc before i took it over and now it's my llc so okay thank you very much do you understand what the inspector's describing in terms of what the code is yes i do and so that's what i would say right now the only sign we have left is the one that's up top and we were using that until we get the backlit led sign put in place so i understand that okay but i would like to actually have It's a little bit longer because it's taking a little bit of time for those sign companies to apparently get permitting and design it and put it up. But it's kind of a pain to.

I have a question. Have you been in contact with the owner in regards to getting a permit for that to install that sign once it's completed?

For the sign? I have been in contact with the landlord because he had to approve the new logo because our logo has changed. And he has approved the logo. or for us to get the sign. But I didn't actually tell him that I actually got this paper because we thought it was us. Got you.

Yeah, we did. We appreciate you coming today, and unfortunately you have little to no standing in terms of what we do because all of our dealings are tied to the specific property and not whoever the tenant may be. But we appreciate you coming in and giving us what they do. You could.

Can I just ask a quick question?

Certainly.

Do you have the paperwork showing the sign has been ordered and it's in process? And have you been able to submit that?

I have an email from Fast Signs, which is actually literally like a block over from us. So we do have an email from them saying that they're giving us, trying to get permitting.

Okay. And do they have a timeline on that?

We have contacted three sign companies. They all have told us the same thing. Permitting is taking forever, and then they won't give us the cost of the sign until they actually know what size sign can be up there. Okay. So we're kind of in this, like, holding pattern until the sign company is kind of good.

I would suggest you get his card and send him any correspondence you get from the sign company.

Absolutely. We will. I have a back to Inspector Burkhart. Thank you, sir, for coming. We appreciate it.

Well, I have a question, but never mind. If you have a question. Go ahead. Basically, she asked what I was going to ask. You have no idea who's even applied for a permit for a permanent sign.

I've been told that Fast Signs has applied, and I also have been... Yeah, but when?

I'm trying to find out.

Oh, when? We took it over in January, and I believe it had been like end of February, first of March, that we reached out to them. They actually came down for lunch. You need to try it. It's better than Marcos.

So four months is combined. Four months.

No word on a permit. Absolutely. And that falls on me. I'm a physical therapist. I work Monday through Friday. I also own Shoreline Docs. I build docs and marinas. I also own four therapy clinics in Knoxville. I also own canine defense system in Oak Ridge.

But that has nothing to do with the permit here.

Yeah, but it's on my fault that if it hasn't been followed up on, I'm like, when is that? That's definitely on me. I let that go through. That's my fault. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you for the question because it answered my question about the timeline on this. I appreciate that. Inspector, I got my question answered by Mr. Engel's question. Any other questions from the board? Any because of the time in this thing, it would seem that the city's request appears reasonable to me, but I will defer to the board. I'm just wondering on the subject of. You know there's there's little or no data in terms of when he's going to actually be able to get a permanent sign and with the work I can appreciate the fact that the city is asking for compliance. About a month from now or a month from today. The only concern I might have about any of it is that the gentleman has a new business and he's taking responsibility for the fact that he doesn't have a sign. Just thinking out loud and thinking ahead, one month if he doesn't have a sign manufactured, permitted, manufactured and installed a month from today then he has no signage for his business is is that something the board wants to consider or do we simply declare a violation and move on can i just ask a quick question have you checked accelera to find out if there's a permit for his sign yeah i checked there's no application for it okay there's not okay

That's interesting.

Well, sir, come back up.

I mean, if there's conflicting data, we'd like to have the most accurate data. Clear that up for us.

Clear it up. I don't know. As soon as I leave here, I will be on the phone with Fast Signs. I might even drive over there and be like, hey, what's going on with this process? Again, my fault. I'm a busy person.

understood it would be incumbent upon the sign people to submit the permit through the acela uh permit portal and if they had done that then and i would imagine that that inspector burkhart would be able to see that that sign application there that's that's fairly cut and dry and if i can get a hold of that paperwork when i go over there i'll stop by there and if i do i'll email it to you and if they haven't started it i will

shoot you an email saying, hey, they haven't started yet, but we're going to keep you guys informed. That would explain the four months past.

It hasn't been applied for.

Absolutely, yes.

Thanks for clarifying that. And like I said, all the signs are down now except for the one sign that says temporary, which is at the top.

And that one at the top is not in compliance with the code, right?

Right. They're all not, unfortunately, because it's a long time. But again, I'm not against giving more time, other than circumstances.

But, I mean, all he's got to do to comply is take down that sign then, right?

Yeah, but then he has no signage for his business.

Correct. I see.

Are you able to extend another 30 days for that sign, a banner?

If it's not a seller, it could be on the desk of some planners. They have their own. Sometimes it's not in the system yet, the permit, so I can't say 100% sure there's no permit submitted. There can be an application on someone's desk, and they're all working hard to get the permits done for everyone.

And now if I get his information, now that I know that this is here, like I saw, I got the piece of paper at the pizza place, so I showed up. Didn't even forward it to a landlord because I thought it was me. Now that I have his information, I will communicate directly with him and say, hey, this is the company, this is what's going on, and I will keep you up to date. But again, up to this point, I didn't even know that was something I had to do. Great. Okay.

I think it's important that you communicate that to the landlord as well.

Well, I will definitely let the landlord know that. And Inspector, you say that it might not even be in the system yet. Do you think that August 22nd would be enough time for a permit to be obtained? Or should we consider longer?

How long is the approval process for a sign, typically? Do we have any information on that?

I can't tell. It depends upon what the workload is. The production of the sign would be a bigger concern, especially when it's an LED sign. That's a bigger concern than the permit, I would say, but I can't give any.

It will be imposed maybe moving into September.

And again, I guess I need to check that because I was very specific on the signs that I like for my businesses. I like an LED backlit sign so it vibrates through with a dust-a-dawn sensor on them. Like all my clinics have the pillbox. It's a very visible sign, so I'm very specific on what I get. I just don't want to... a light up there with a flashlight. So it may be my problem that they're taking longer because I was very specific on how I want it built. Well, it has to be approved. Whatever you come up with still has to be approved. Correct. And that's why I thought, because I was so specific and anal, this is why they're having issues with the process.

Remember, the most important thing is that what's out there now comes down by a certain date, not necessarily what ends up getting approved. Right. Correct.

Yeah. I think it's more of a consideration that the board may or may not be willing to offer as a courtesy to this gentleman and his business more than anything else. It really, beyond that, as far as our motions and ruling, really has nothing to do with us.

So you can gamble on a crazy sign with all kinds of cool stuff on it, or you could do something more bare-bones and maybe get it real weird.

If you come and try my pizza, I'll do that.

Don't take bribes now. Don't take that as a bribe.

I'm just joking. Glad you made that clear.

I would point out as well that the inspector has some latitude if he knows that there's a sign-in permitting and it's being manufactured and scheduled for install or something. During that process, the inspector has some latitude about when he brings this back to us for notice for violations.

Does that mean that we have to entertain the temporary sign? It's out of compliance.

Nope. It's, I mean, we go ahead and make our motions. I'm just saying in terms of a deadline here, whatever deadline we set. Okay.

So can I put in a motion to extend to September 22nd?

You can put in a motion for whatever date you want it. We're just going to vote on it.

So the tip sign can stay up there even if we give them extra time.

Well.

That's my point.

They're requesting compliance on or before September. whatever date we give them. So that sign's got to come down by whatever date we set. So if we give it until September, he still has a banner. Effectively, he's allowed to have a banner sign up before and not improve fines until the date we specify. Am I correct, council? Okay. All right. Can I put in a motion? Any other discussion on this one? All right, rock and roll.

I'd like to put in a motion to extend the temporary sign.

Wait a minute.

What we're doing is, number one, we're doing a first motion of violation. And then when we do our second motion, we will use that particular date that you want to use. So we'll do a standard first motion. I want a first motion.

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

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

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct a violation on or before September 22nd, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of, is it 150 or 250? 150. 150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid for three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Thank you. Thank you, sir, for coming to speak with us.

Thank you so much for having me. Thank you, sir. Enjoy your pizza. All right.

Agenda item 3.19 has been continued to August. Agenda item 3.20, case 144-26, find respondents Shane and Sarah Scott at 3136 San Pedro Street in violation of code for abandoned building and issue an 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 and give us your name and address in relation to the property?

Good day, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Shane Scott. I own 3136 San Pedro Street.

Excellent. So we're going to do you admit or deny the violation? I admit violation.

I'm sorry, Chair. Were you sworn in?

No, I was not here. All right. Let's do that.

Yes. And then I'll ask you.

If you could just raise your hand. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth throughout your entire testimony? Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

All right. Then I need to ask you again, now that you're sworn in. Do you admit or deny the violation? I admit the violation. Excellent, sir. We're going to hear from the inspector, then we'll have you back up to talk with us.

Inspector? That's the first time I've met him. We've been talking on the phone for quite a while. Kevin Maddox, code enforcement inspector for case number 144-26, address of 3136 San Pedro Street. One violation of abandoned building under 3-1503B2. Notice the violation was sent and posted on 5-18 of this year. Compliance date by 6-4 of this year. I'll explain in the next in the next slide where that timeline comes through. No green card was received and the property was posted. So of last year, September, a courtesy letter was sent. A notice of violation was sent the first time on July of last year. And then from last year to the present, many months of monitoring, financial setbacks, contractor issues were communicated. and then second notice of violation was created and posted on may of 26 and then as of today no improvement or demolition of the property has occurred so this is the property as of 7 10 of 2025 there's no roof on it and it's It's pretty much gutted on the inside. This is where it was posted the second time because we didn't receive back a green card acknowledging. On 518, this is still the condition of the property with no roof on it. If you look real close here, you can see it's just bare walls. And this is as of a couple days ago. It's still in the same condition. In those pictures, there was, in the interim, there was things that were going on where contractors were starting projects in the back. There was forms put up. There was concrete that was going to be put down. There was communication from the owner who was explaining what he was going through during this whole time. And finally, it just came to a point where I had to bring in the code word. Compliance can be met for this violation of abandoned building by bringing the property into compliance with current property maintenance ordinances and have current utilities turned on or demolished the building.

Can we go back to that previous screen? I don't want to interrupt you, but you said and, and that reads or, and I want to make sure we're understanding what the... what it is we're trying to meet. Oh, I see. Ordinances then have more demolish.

OK. Utilities term. I got you. OK. Thank you. It's just part of the code for an abandoned building.

Right.

So we're requesting compliance on or before August 26 of 2026 or a fine of $150 per day. I'm sure the owner will have some things to tell you.

Okay. Since we, do we have any questions of the inspector at the moment?

I do.

Okay.

Is there, was there permits for this? And if it's a second violation, couldn't you guys have gone in and taken it down or come here to ask us to allow you to do that after a second violation?

I'm sorry, your first question?

Were there original permits? I don't understand what happened. Was the roof taken off in a storm? Is it a new build?

There were permits. As I recall, there were permits that had expired and just continued to be an abandoned building.

But it's a new build, or it's an extension onto a house? I don't understand. I don't know.

Mr. Scott, what's up? before we get too far off into exactly what's occurring, I'd like to go ahead and do the first violation, and then let's gather data and figure out what we're gonna do on the second part of this, if that's okay. All right, may I have the first motion, please?

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

May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right, so, There's a question about whether or not it was just an existing building or there was something else going on with it.

I think the owner might be able to explain it better. Sure.

i purchased the building on december 8th of 2023. it is two blocks from my parents and we were planning to expand the building it's originally 1185 we've drawn it up to be 2493 in square footage and so we were actually going to lift it as well hence the reason we took off the roof The garage is still there, so are three walls. The slab would be extended, monolithic pour. My dad's an architect, so that's what we do. And extending the home to be our permanent home and to be, again, two blocks from my parents. we were humming and then in february of 2024 i i lost my job and we were rolling what we were doing and we had just made a significant investment about fifty thousand dollars liquid to get things in place to go i um after conversations with the contractor found out that he was not as honest as he portrayed himself to be and so i'm still out that 50 and have been looking to find someone to help source the rest of the info. Because of the state of the building, I cannot get even a construction loan or a two or three K loan. So I'm exploring hard money situations right now. We have three proposals out and are waiting for those to come back in. And the goal is to still complete the building, but as it is, it's not gotten to the point that I will probably have to sell it once I'm done constructing it, because I will no longer be able to afford the payment. We moved from about 500,000 to about 700,000 to be in. The CMA shows that we'll be around 930 for the community, for the neighborhood. Homes are pending at 401 a square foot. We'll be in for about 320 a square foot for our build. And so we're just trying to find funding.

So with those details, thank you for providing them. Sure. It's not feasible for you to get this into compliance within?

No, we can tear it down and it would be a ground up construction. That is what we're exploring right now.

Okay.

If you, I'm sorry, were you through?

Yes, thank you.

If you pursued demolition, have you explored that enough to have a reasonable prediction of how long?

That can definitely be done by August 26th.

That's a month, a little over a month from now, a month and four days?

Yes, whatever the date was that was provided before. I believe it was August 26th.

Yeah, okay. Have you spoken with the building department about what's required in order to demolish the structure?

I have not spoken with them. I've gotten several quotes about demolishing. They said that they would get the permitting as part of the payment for demolishing the building because I believe gas has to be locked off so there's water tagged in different locations and then we would go down to slab. That is a question I do have. What would be required when it says demolition? Do we have to move slab as well or just down to slab?

That would be a question for the building department. You can talk with your code inspector and he can either assist you with that or you can perhaps talk to the building department directly in terms of what those requirements are. The reason I ask that question is I question a 34-day timeline for compliance with demolition. Inspector, do you care to offer anything on that?

If moving forward is going to be a demolition, I have no problem with following and monitoring it to conclusion as long as it's started right away.

Are we proposing to extend the date?

I don't want to be in the position of testifying, but if somebody else wants to answer questions or even query the building department on what a reasonable amount of time would be for that, then I would be happy to entertain something that's realistic.

Mr. Garrett's coming up.

That's what I was looking for.

Your wish is your command. Mr. Garrett's coming. Clear enough.

Hi, Kevin Gary with the building department again. So a demo permit, what you need to do is contact the county air quality people and see what they're going to want for asbestos. They'll want to do an asbestos survey and see if there's anything that you need to do on that. Yeah. And then do a cut and cap for your water and sewer and then apply through our office for the demo permit, which is basically if you got those two things done, the permits just issued. So it's a quick turnaround time with those. with those other things with the county done, county and the utilities.

Sure. I have a question for you. How long was, how long approximately would that take? Would it be 30 days? It just depends on when he processes?

The asbestos survey would probably take the longest because he'll need to contact a, well, first contact the air quality people. And then if they say, yeah, you need to do a survey, then you gotta get a company that will go out and they'll do samples. They'll test the samples. That'll take a couple of days turnaround time. And then they'll give a report back to the owner and then it gives that to the county and then they'll determine if it's a wet demo or if there's nothing to worry about or how they need to address the asbestos that may or may not be in the building. So you've got to allow probably a couple of weeks at least just for that.

I have a question for you whenever you're active. Is there something else?

Yeah. Let me then go on to the cut and cap. That would be hiring a plumber. And so when the plumber can get out to the property, that's kind of up to the plumber, whatever his schedule is. And then that work can be done within a day, get an inspection the next business day, and that would be completed.

Based on your experience, is 34 days a reasonable or a typical time for something like this to occur? In your expectation, do they typically take longer than that?

If everything went perfectly, you could do it in 34 days. Thank you. Yeah. All right.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. based on the knowledge at hand I would I would suggest you know we set this out like 60 days would seem fair it's enough to motivate move things along and bring the case along based on that I would also agree to that because I'd be working out on the Clearwater Beach area

many of them struggle to continue to get this done in that kind of a reasonable time. And then again, I can also monitor this at that point to see where it is, as long as it started right away.

I have a question for Mr. Scott. I'm sorry to hear about your misfortune getting your home built, number one. I really am. I feel for you. Do you think that 60 days would be enough if you're going to have to pursue a tear down?

Yeah, that's interesting to me because the close I got, they said they could do it in a week. Yeah, but in a perfect way. I mean, look, if... Because the other part is I didn't know about the asbestos, so that is one thing. That's what I'm saying. That can take time. I will defer to the experts if they believe it can be done in 60. We're ready to move on.

Any other questions from the board? I believe we did a first declaration. Can we do a second that sets us 60 days out? And what would that date be, Madam Secretary?

That would be September 26th.

September 26th.

Okay, good.

All right. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before September 26th of 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day. Each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

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

Motion carries. Quick question. Once it's leveled. How do I stay out of? Okay. That's your friend right there.

There's your answer right there. Best of luck, Mr. Scott.

Thank you for coming today, Mr. Scott. Appreciate it. Good luck to you.

Nice guy.

Yes. All right. Moving on. Agenda item 3.21 has been continued to August 26th. Agenda item 3.22, case 147-26. Final respondents, A5Js, LLC at 2620 Drew. In violation of code for permits, an issue and order with compliance deadline and fine and compliance is not met. Inspector Reese, you're back.

Good afternoon again, Board.

And I'm going to interrupt you a moment. Is there anybody here to speak on this case? All right. Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Okay, there was Inspector Catherine Reese with Clearwater. Case number is 147-26 for 2620 Drew Street. We have one violation here for permits required, section 4-203 . Specifically, a permanent sign installed on the structure. Had multiple notice of violations. First one began August 21st of 2025. The last one was sent December 1st of 2025. multiple compliance dates were also given. I've had two certified mails out of the three notices that were sent, August 26th of 2025 and September 22nd of 2025. This is going to be just east of US 19, north of Drew Street. This is the corner commercial lot there. And this is the sign that is in violation. I do have another angle that you'll see better in here shortly. It appears to say the cut lounge. And this was the updated photo. I just kept checking because they do have an option to take it down. So each time before I sent the notice of violation, I ensured that the sign was still up. And as of today, the sign is still there.

What does the sign say? The Cut Lounge.

I believe it's a barber shop that is there. I have had communication with the property owner The first time being September 24th of 2025. I explained to him that he thought it was already permitted. That was a different business. So I did let him know each time a sign comes down, even if it was the same sign, it would need to be re-permitted again because it needs to ensure that it's safe. He did speak with his tenants way back at the temporary office on State Road 580. They came in. and the signs contracted that they used, they explained, seems to be very confused. Unfortunately, I tried very hard to work with them because of the situation with that contractor, but I have gotten no compliance and no more communication on the matter. So compliance can be met by obtaining an issue permit and completing said permit with inspections, or they can remove the sign as well. So requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on a before, excuse that date, it's August 24th, 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?

Board, any questions? All right. May I have a first motion, please?

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

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

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation of honor before August 22nd, 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 3.23 on our agenda is continued to September. Item 3.24 is continued to August. Item 3.25, Case 150-26, fine respondents Katina A. Peduzzi and 2054 Rainbow Drive in violation of code for permits, initial order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Yes, ma'am. Would you come forward and give us your name and address in relation to the property, please?

My name is Katina Peduzzi. I'm the owner.

Okay. Thank you. Do you admit or deny the violation? I admit. Okay. Thank you very much. Can I go ahead and get a first motion, please?

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

Second.

All in favor?

Aye. All opposed? Thank you. We're going to go ahead and hear from the inspector and then we'll have you back up to give us more data. All right, Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Hello again, code board. This is for 2054 Rainbow Drive. I'm Inspector Catherine Reese with the City of Clearwater, case number 150-26. This is for one violation, permits required section 4-203 , specifically for the installation of the wooden fence on the property. Uh, we had multiple notice violations. First one was October 14th, 2025 final one on February 27th of 2026 certified mail had been signed for all three notice violations. Uh, this is just north of rainbow drive, I believe in east of mercury. And this is the fence that was installed without a permit. And that was the initial inspection photo, October, October 14th, 2025. And this is, as of today, it is still there without a permit. So the permit, they did come in and try to apply for the permit. It is in revisions needed for multiple departments. I really can't speak on that too much. They need to come in to meet those revisions so that way they can get an issued permit. That's the only way to come in compliance. So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit with inspections or remove the fence and submit a void letter for the permit BCP 2025-100634. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before August 24th, 2026 and completion of the permit six months from issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist.

Inspector Reese, do you have knowledge of when those revisions are to be expired?

Well, they won't ever expire, those revisions. Eventually, the permit will go stale and it will get voided out because it's not really an issued permit and it's not moving along. So then we'd be back to square one with her still being in violation. So it is, in fact, in violation today. Okay.

And how long would the permit go stale if it's not me move along?

It depends. It's like something that people manually go ahead and catch that it's not really going anywhere. I don't know if the system automatically voids it after so long. Okay.

When was the permit application submitted?

It was applied for October 21st of 2025. And as you can see, revisions have been needed since then. There hasn't been any traction on any of those revisions.

Okay, so basically a permit was, was this permit, you know, was this done before or after the fence was installed? Is this an after the fact?

It is an after the fact.

Okay, so the fence was installed and then they found that they needed a permit, so they applied for a permit, but it needs revisions. And nothing's occurred since the permit application in terms of the system or any changes or updates or amendments or anything else?

Not that I'm aware of. But the revision, I do believe I printed out the conditions. I could put them. It's a very, very small print, but.

It always is. Yeah.

So. So there you can see engineering review, paying the fines, getting the CO condition and planning review. None of that has been met. So that lets me know that nothing has really been submitted in the permit for it to move along any further.

So the new permit hasn't been issued. It's in revisions, need to fix, right?

It's essentially just an applied permit with no movement, exactly. So there is no permit. Correct. It's an application.

Yes. Thank you.

So I see the second item, paid fees. I'm just taking note because I know how that process works, and if they submit and they haven't paid the initial fees, it's going to sit there until those do. At any rate, does anybody else have questions for the inspector? Okay, let's hear from Bettina. What would you like to tell us about all of this?

Well, I usually don't take care of this. My husband passed away recently, and so this is kind of dropped on my plate. My son or I told him that the permitting was in place or in process. So he thought that meant to go ahead and build a fence. So that was the first miscommunication. So then that's when I did the permitting or the application. I do have a reference here in May that they received that information or the, you know, the variances that need to be fixed on that, at least the application for that. I have a reference number of Z01937. So I was waiting for that. That's why this came to me as a surprise. I was waiting for that to happen. So there was an email mix-up as well. I emailed it from my Hotmail in the original in March to do the, because we had to get extensions until March 2nd, to do the variance request. But then I rarely ever fix that and look at that email. And I had on the application to email me back on my Gmail account. So I didn't check that until May. And then that's when I was definitely submitted back in the proper way was May 29. So they should have the information. And like I said, I have a reference number for this, for the variances for the application. So I assumed we were in process and in work. And then I got this letter saying I had to come today.

Okay. All right. So your intentions are basically to figure out how to sort it out?

Absolutely. Okay. Absolutely. To get the variance that we need to have the fence where it's at and to continue with the fence if that's, once I get the permit, once it's approved.

What do you know about that in terms of the, what kind of variance are you looking for? Is it outside the property line or past the house or what kind of variance are you seeking?

there was so in the back of the house there was an add-on on the original house and they're saying that that was the setback but there's three or four houses in the neighborhood that are having the same fence and they have the same setback so in order to house the boat it would have to come to the end of the property line or not the property line by the end of the house

okay has anybody told you we call that flexibility in the city like just so that's where because we don't technically do variants in the city of clear correct flexibility that word yes has somebody indicated to you that flexibility is a possibility in this situation it's possible okay it's possible now we did have um what would make it go a little easier or

smoother is if my adjacent neighbor would put up a fence at the same spot and we can go to that for you know to meet the coding zoning lines right but we were moving forward with that but then there's we're not getting along as well now the neighbor so that stopped but like i said i have pictures of different houses in that neighborhood that's have gotten their permits to do the same thing as I would like to do.

Has anyone mentioned to you whether getting flexibility for this would require going to the community development board or what the process would be? No.

No. I was supposed to put it all together, show them at least what I was instructed to was put everything together, show pictures of fences in the neighborhood, and just ask for it at that point. And like I said, that whole packet was sent and I have confirmation that it was in there for May 29th of this year.

Gotcha. I was just trying to figure out how long it might take to kind of go through this process since we don't have anyone from planning here to kind of give us any guidance. Right. Because I am like the planning attorney as well. Ah, okay. But, all right. Sounds like there's some unknowns there.

So you have some things to do to, you're not at a point where, correct me if I'm mistaken, but you're not at a point where you clearly understand what you need to do to get in compliance or get this corrected. Is that a fair statement or do you, do you know?

No, I do not. I, like I said, I was asked to put this, the reasons why I needed it or requesting the not variance, but the flexibility flexibility. Um, again, because it, otherwise it would shorten the whole fence back up and it'd be like an It doesn't look right. It doesn't lay out at all. So you have the two houses, one here and one here. If I put my fence way back here, I'm losing like three-quarters of my property to put up a fence. So the flexibility is to move it where the end of the house is. It would almost line up to the front of the next house behind me. So that way I can also put the boat back there and be compliant and that kind of thing. So yeah, it sounds like there's a lot more to do.

Okay. Would you be able to be in contact with the billing department to help sort these things out and understand what the things need to be done on your permit, what's required there? Yes. Okay.

Do you think August would be enough time for you to go through all this?

Um, but listening to everyone, I would probably not, um, cause it sounds like everyone's behind on permitting. So I would request another 60 to 90 days.

Yes. Um, I, I'm going to give you my course so you can stay in contact with me. And, um, I'm just, I would suggest that we keep the date. I have a discretion to not move forward with the affidavit if she is moving forward properly. And I have great communication with zoning. that I can see the FLS is going in. I do watch all the permits and all the flexibility applications that come in. It's something I can just on my own hold off from bringing back with an affidavit of noncompliance if I see it's moving along.

Mr. Gehrig?

Sorry.

Hello, Kevin, Gary. I'll add a little bit that I know on that. It's two separate processes. To get your flexibility for what you're doing is probably 30 to 60 days, depending on when you get the application in. If the application is complete, then it goes to the DRC and gets approved that way. So I would allow 60 days for that. And then you can submit for your construction permit And for offense permit, you're going to probably take three or five days to get that turnaround back to you. So you're probably looking at two, three months.

Kevin, do you think it's possible this might have to go to the Community Development Board for approval, or you're not really able to weigh in on that? Because I know that certain flexibility requests have to go to the board, whether it's a level two or it's a level one.

yeah i don't know that i can answer that because i don't know what they're flexing on because again i think that comes back to time because if you got to go to cdb then you got to get scheduled for that so are you putting the fence in front of the house no no

I'm going to step in and suggest that if there are things to look at that in terms of, unless we're in the process here of trying to figure out what a fair timeline would be in reviewing documents and stuff, that maybe we look at what is a fair amount of time to give here so that we can move forward and finish our agenda so that it works in your benefit to try and get this thing done. But it's a fair and reasonable assessment, unless I have an objection from any of you on that. I think the goal here is to try and figure out what's best and fair that will help you get this done, but also satisfy the city's concerns as well. Inspector Reese, would you have an objection? I don't want to speak out of turn for the board. Would you have an objection of 60 days?

No, I have no objection. And even from that point, even if it's not done, I, again, can have discretion to continue working with her if it's moving along. The city just wants to see progression towards getting the permit.

Sure.

Any other questions or input?

I just wanted to ask, are you doing this as a homeowner builder or do you have a contract? Good question. Homeowner. Okay.

Yes. That could be daunting in and of itself. Yes, it can. Any other questions from the board? Any objections to 60 days, then that's what we'll move. All right. May I have a second motion, please?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before September 24, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per date per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is Filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Ma'am, thank you for coming and speaking with us today and helping clarify this issue, and good luck to you.

And our condolences on your husband. Yes. You're welcome.

All right. Moving on to agenda item 3.26. It's been continued to September. It's a little bit. Item 3.27, case 152-26, line respondents Ivan, Caruso Trustee, 912 Seminole Street, Land Trust, and 912 Seminole Street in violation of the code for permits. An issue and order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Hello again, Board. I'm Inspector Catherine Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is at 912 Seminole Street, case number 152-26. I believe we're stuck here from expanding, so I'll just move on for now. We have one violation here for permits required. This is going to be specifically for the permit BCP 2015-11427, which was a new build for a primary structure that was voided out. The permit is required for the new primary structure that stands there today. So this started back in 2023. Multiple notices have gone out through multiple inspectors. My final one was sent out April 27th of 2026, multiple compliance dates. This is posted a notice of violation due to no certified mail being signed on the property on April 28th of 2026. This is my posting of hearing to the property on July 9th of 2026. So this is gonna be right on Seminole Street in between Vine and Pennsylvania Avenue. So this is a Google photo that shows May of 2014. It was a vacant lot. And then the structure was being built April 2017. That was another Google photo. And this is February 2025. So this was the permit that was for the owner at the time who got the permit and it was voided out and he did submit a void letter. It was handwritten, I can put it here for you all to see. that he was no longer the owner of the property and the new owner was going to take over for the new contractor of the build.

So the contractor voided out his permit. That letter was from the contractor.

Was it? I believe it was from, oh yes, it was from the contractor, correct, because he put his license number there.

Okay. So if I could clarify before you go further, you mentioned the owner pulled a permit, but then a contractor voided it out. I would assume we're saying that he basically hired a contractor who pulled a permit, and then at some point the owner was saying it sold and the contractor pulled out. Right. But yet we have a building built anyway.

So you're talking about a permit for new construction then?

That is correct. Okay. So before the permit was voided out and new contracted permits, took over that permit. It was transferred over to the new contractor, which involved the new owner of the property. That he didn't have the funds to basically move forward with that anymore. So that is why it was voided out again.

The owner did or the contractor?

The contractor. Okay. Because ultimately the contractor is who owns that permit. So it needs to be done by the contractor, not the property owner. But the violation stands with the property, as you all know.

Right. But we have a structure built.

That is correct. And that's why we're here today.

So my first question is what would have to do with the timeline about when was the, we have an initial permit that was applied for and was approved. And then at some point the owner, the original contractor, before he voided his permit, another contractor took it over. So I'm assuming that Timeline-wise, you have a permit that's submitted, a permit that's approved. At some point, construction begins. The owner of the property sells the property. A new contractor takes the permit over, and the old contractor voids it. One of the questions I have is, where in this did construction start during this whole process?

Somewhere in between the 2017 photo and... Well, the original permit was applied for... Let me see if I can go back to the permit. In 2015, November 25th of 2015 is when it was applied for. So it was some time ago, and then- Up in years. Yes, so long story short, the property owner could not move forward with the finances with the contractor, which is not the city's concern. The city's concern is, who's going to pull this permit for this new build? So that's where we're at today. We have a new build that has no permit. We don't know where inspections stand and if this structure holds the integrity to cope.

Are you able to tell under the original permit, was there any construction done? Were there any inspections done? I mean, what occurred?

Yes, there were multiple, I did not, I apologize, I usually do put those screenshots in, but because it's a voided permit, I think that's why I left it out. It is irrelevant at this point because they will have to start from scratch with the new permit. I did hear, however, include how many times the system did send that their permit was expiring and all of that. It took the contractor. This letter to void was sent September 6th of 2023, and that is when the initial violation for the stop order got opened from the original inspector. Okay. so it took them that long to submit that for it to become aware that this was still happening and that the structure is now up so at this time we just need them to come in compliance by obtaining an after the fact permit for the primary structure with inspections so the fact that it was the property changed hands and the fact that

work occurred somewhere during this time period, the fact that there was no approved permit and no approved inspections that we're able to see, it's basically that really the fact that the property was sold and the contractor left, so on and so forth, it still boils down to the basic fact that at the end of the day, you have a property built without a valid permit and inspections, and that's what we're here to address.

Right, and all notice violations were sent to the property owner and property appraiser who owns it today. So they are aware of the violation. They took over the property knowing that this was still going to be needing a permit.

Have you spoken with the owner? No. I'm assuming you've sent him notices, but you've not heard any of them?

I've sent notices. I've posted to property. I've attempted to knock. I've had no communication.

There's a lot of missing data there, but it doesn't affect us much, I don't believe. Does anybody else have questions? I do.

Is the house occupied?

I believe so. There's vehicles that are always parked there. I just don't think anybody wants to talk with me. You're not welcome.

Well, the utilities are obviously coming out.

It could be a tenant in there. It would all be guesses at this point.

Can you tell how far it got into the approval of the previous? I only ask because is it dangerous for people to be living in there?

It's not permitted, so anything that's not permitted and has not been inspected is potentially dangerous.

It's called squat. Well, it's potential hazards, too. Yes. OK, any other questions? This ought to be an easy one. Can I get a first motion?

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

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

motion carries may have a second motion please i move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before october uh i'm sorry august september august august 24th of 2026 if the respondent does not comply by that date the board may order a fine of 150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

May I have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Thank you, Inspector Reese. Item 3.8 on our agenda has been withdrawn. 3.28 has been withdrawn. Moving on to old business items, we have a... request by a petitioner. Case 7E-23, consider request by petitioners Iev and Elan at 1383 Gulf Bay Boulevard to reduce the fine regarding graffiti. And if approved, issue an order that specifies a fine that includes administration costs and establish the date payable. The lien will revert to its original amount. I know we have a written request submitted to us, but I don't see anybody here to speak on this one or address it. I see that we also have our original minutes. Speaking from the chair's position, my concern about this one is that there's very little data here. This is a large amount, and I'm not exactly sure. I'm not sure how I would approach a reduction on this, but I welcome any comments or questions or whatever from the board.

I wish this guy had money today.

Yeah, that would have helped.

So, Board, I have been in contact. The property owner is not able to be here. He's elderly. His realtor was desperately trying to help him through this process, and she got him to fill out the application, and she submitted it to me. So I just wanted you to be aware that he wasn't able to be here.

Is the graffiti gone now?

Yep, I can give a little more information on the status of the building. The violation was for graffiti on boarded up windows. The graffiti has been cleaned since 2025. The property is in compliance with the violation that was cited that these leads have been accruing for. There are potentially some other issues at the building that have nothing to do with this violation of the lien reduction. However, it looks like from his reduction paperwork, it looks like there's a sale pending. So in the

you know getting a new owner in who potentially would take over the building and fix those issues that we would not oppose and be supportive of a lien reduction we have seen cases in the past too where an owner will a potential owner or buyer will come to the city and discuss these items and come up with the stipulated agreement um without without any other input other than the limit data we have here I wouldn't know where else to go with this.

I could touch a little bit on that too with the stipulated agreement is that there currently are no other violations cited.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

Sorry, for the stipulated agreement, there currently are no other violations cited in the system. When this came out, this lien reduction request came in, we went out and looked at the property and said there are theoretically some other violations at the property. However, there are not currently any cases open, so there's nothing to stipulate at this point.

Right.

I don't oppose with reducing the lane.

Is this a residence?

No. I have pictures if you'd like to see, but it's a strip mall on Gulf to Bay. Yeah.

I looked it up. It's kind of on the, isn't it on kind of just, it's just past where Gulf to Bay takes off of Cleveland Street. There are some strip centers as you kind of go up the hill toward the big bend up there at Highland. um and this is like an older strip center of two to four storefronts and the map quest or google maps shows you can look on the building and you see their old photo that has the plywood and the graffiti on it for whatever that's worth and if that's been corrected now then so be it but

Mr. Salzman, do you have the administrative cost?

Yes. The total administrative cost of $1,053.20. Thank you.