Municipal Code Enforcement Board - Regular Meeting

Today's meeting of the code enforcement board is called to order on Wednesday, 08/27/2025. Welcome, everyone. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and

justice for all.

Please be seated. Agenda of today's meeting are on the wall at the entrance to chambers. Please remember to turn off your cell phones. It is this board's intention to promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Clearwater by providing this equitable, effective and inexpensive method of enforcing certain codes within the city. The board considers new business items in two parts. First, the violation and then affirmative relief. Formal rules of evidence do not apply. Each side is limited to fifteen minutes. The board may grant additional time. All proceedings will be conducted in a calm civil manner. Individuals who conduct themselves otherwise will be asked to leave. If necessary, they will be escorted from the chambers. Now I ask all who plan to speak to rise and be sworn in by our clerk.

Do you swear our firm to tell the truth throughout your entire testimony?

I do. Thank you.

Our first order of business is to review and approve the minutes of last Friday's meeting. May I have a motion to approve the minutes?

There are some people that didn't that they don't they understand.

Yeah. But we I checked with the evidence

in one

of these.

If you plan if if any of you plan to speak If you plan to please Are you going to speak in this meeting today? Everyone that plans is gonna speak, please stand and be sworn in by our clerk.

Do you swear upon and tell the truth about your entire testimony? Thank you.

Alright. Our first order of business is going to be to review and approve the minutes of last month's meeting. May I have a motion to approve the minutes?

I so move. I second it.

All in favor? Aye.

All

opposed? Minutes are approved. Is there anyone here to speak on items that are not on our agenda today? No? Alright, we will get started with our new business items, which is 4.1 on our agenda, case 70One-twenty5, fine respondents Anne S. Collins Estates at 1877 Springtime Avenue in violation of code for roof maintenance, door and window openings, and exterior surfaces, and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? No? Inspector Dixon, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, board. Inspector Gregory Dixon, co compliance office, city of Clearwater. This case, 7125 For 71877 Springtime Avenue. There are three violations at the property for roof maintenance, door and window maintenance, and exterior surfaces. Those violations started going out in April, and the mail came back, so it was reposted with a compliance date in July.

This is the property. There's a tarp on the roof, and all or most of the windows are boarded up. Here's the day I posted the property along with a bunch of some nuisance cases along with these three. Here's the property in June. And I believe this is today. I think that picture is a little cut off, but the front yard's been cut. That's the only change to the property.

So there is somebody possibly living there?

Yeah. I've seen people come and go. They don't talk to me, but the grass got cut in the front anyway.

Pretty dark in there.

Yeah. Hot. Complaints have been met for the roof by maintaining the roof in a clean, mildew free condition and kept free of trash, loose singles, debris, and other elements, including grass, weeds, and tarps, as well as anything that's not a permanent part of the building or a functional element of its mechanical or electrical system. Compliance can be met for the doors and windows by removing all boards and coverings from all doors and windows. Ensure all doors and windows are in good repair, including the window frames, sills, and panes.

Compliance can be met for the exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structural or decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, and faded and peeling paint. Case 71251877SpringtimeAvenue for the three violations requesting compliance on and before October 1 or a fine of a $150 per day per violation if compliance compliance is is not not met. Met.

Board, do we have any questions for mister Dixon on this case?

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

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Motion carries. I move to

enter order requiring the respondent to correct the violations honored before 10/01/2025. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the order 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.

And a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right, next on our agenda is 4.2K72-twenty5, fine respondents Carolyn Gravely Moss at 1811 North Fort Harrison Avenue in violation of code for exterior services, an issue in order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? No? Inspector Dixon, you have

the floor.

This property is coming in compliance. We'd just like to request a declaration of violation.

Okay. Can I get a declaration?

I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit, in this case, the violation is corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that the health fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may enter a fine up to $500 for each day each violation continues to exist.

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. All right, next is 4.3 on our agenda, case number 73Dash25, final respondents Rash Holdings LLC at 692 Bayway Boulevard Number 405 in violation of code for short term rental and issued an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Will you come forward please? So that's this. Come on up.

That's this big

Are you are you the owner?

I do. You're the property owner? Okay.

Will you step to will you step to the podium please and state your name and address for the record. Okay.

My name is Melanie McNamara. I'm the sole owner of Rash Holdings LLC.

And your address?

My home address or property address. Either one. It's 692 Bayway Boulevard in Clearwater Beach.

Okay. Do you admit or deny the violation today?

I deny them.

You deny? Mhmm. Alright. If you'll have a seat right there, we will get back to you and hear from the city. Thank you.

Thank you, mister chair. Jared Simpson. I'm the attorney for the code enforcement, staff, and I thought it would be helpful if I just came down here because this case is a little bit unusual from what you're used to seeing. So I'll try to walk you through it. And of course, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. The first thing I wanted to show you, I put on the overhead. This is the notice of violation that went out. Just wanna clarify what the what the city is alleging here. And, it's section one dash one zero four, and it says essentially that you can't use a building unless it's in conformity with all development approvals. So, what makes this case a little bit unusual is that the property is located in the tourist district.

But the development order that approved the the building that's built there was approved for residential use. So short term rental, it's been long standing position in the city that short term rentals are not allowed in this building consistent with that development order. And I'll give you, I'll get into that a little bit more detail. So, in the notice of violation, we do cite to the development order and that was approved for single family uses and attached dwelling. It was not approved for a resort attached dwelling which I'll explain is a different kind of use.

There's never been a change of use application that was correctly processed and approved. And so they haven't gone through that change of use to migrate from attached dwelling to the resort attached dwelling, which would allow for short term rental use if that was the proof use, but it's not. So the other thing I just wanted to point out, what we cited to was that they, the owner, which would be the previous owner to who's being cited now, this is the developer at the time this was developed, specifically stated in their application that that the basis of why they were changing redeveloping the property at the time was to change from overnight accommodations which was what was there before to the attached dwelling residential use. So, we highlighted in the in the notice just to to make it further clear. We don't we don't know what all information they have on the history of the property that they bought into.

So, we're trying to give that to them in the notice. But you can see here that in the application, it they specifically assured the city that the replacement of the overnight accommodation use with an owner occupied use would help reduce the transient tenants in the area. So that was their assurance as an applicant at the time to the city. And in exchange for that, they received this development order that was approved, and I highlighted the date for you in 2003 and according to this development order, the attached dwellings were approved and you can see from that list there of a whole host of regulations were given flexibility based on that assurance. So all of these setbacks, all of the setbacks were reduced.

The high restriction for that property was reduced. There were some building separation issues. There's a there's a dock that's associated with the condo. There was some concern about that being a commercial could be converted into a commercial dock if this was a hotel. All of those things were sorted out and as part of that approval, so the city approved the reduction of setbacks and height, all of those things and they imposed several conditions and amongst the conditions is is that the sorry, I didn't highlight this section, but I'll point to you for you.

That the dock itself would be for the exclusive use by the residents or their guests. And so this just to kind of give you the history of what was approved here was that they had requested for the residential use and that was what was approved back in 2003. Again, I've got here another related document to that. This is the staff report that was submitted according to the staff report. They were changing from overnight accommodations, is what they had before, to the attached townhome dwellings.

This I actually didn't include in the packet that for you, but I'll just highlight it for you on this part of the record. But the application itself talks about it makes several several references throughout their application about access for the homeowners, the fact that there were not a lot of high end residential uses and that was part of the reason why this would be good for this part of the beach. All of this I'm just explaining to emphasize the point that they made up the developer at the time made all of these assurances based on a residential use in order to get those setback reductions and other other benefits to be able to develop in the way that they wanted to develop at the time. The next thing I'll just highlight a couple of code sections for you to see. I actually realized later that this is actually a level two.

Believe it was a level two. Regardless if it was level one or level two, there's code section for each one. It specifically says that that approval authorizes only the particular use approved. So, you know, this this type of use is allowed in a tourist district. Let's be clear that the the short term rental use would be allowed if it was a resort attached dwelling.

It's not a resort attached dwelling. It's an attached dwelling that was already approved, and that particular use is what was approved. If they want to change the use, they have to go through the change of use process. And that's what this code requires here. And then just to show you again that our code has different definitions for these different types of uses. That's to explain that these are different kinds of the

reason

to

store.

To say is that if you're a not resort dwelling, you can have that. Short term rental there. If you're not, then you can't. And so that's that's basically what these definitions say. I will I will point out this to just an acknowledgement because there has been some confusion on on on these issues. That's why I'm here trying to help explain and bring clarity to the situation. The city has sent notices out that included this codes reference to this code section and that has caused some confusion because this specifies the residential zoning district and that's not where we are. We're in the tourist district. So we're trying to clarify that now. I've gotten involved and we're trying to clarify that.

Technically, this does not specifically apply, but this section does not prohibit anything. What this section does is it creates an assumption or a presumption. It says that if any of these things are occurring, then you as the code board should go ahead and presume that this is a a short term rental in a residential zone. So, these are the factors that that we consider in determining whether or not something is a residential use or not And because there's a heightened concern about short term rental in residential zones, we create a presumption in those areas. So it's sort of like a heightened presumption, a heightened evidentiary burden for that, for those areas.

But that doesn't mean that it doesn't apply at all. It's just sort of a presumption that only applies in that zone. But it's thirty days. And then just to clarify where thirty days comes from, that comes from state law. And when you look at what the state law, how the state law defines what a what a public lodging establishment is, essentially a hotel or a transient lodging establishment defined by state law.

It's something that's rented for less than thirty days. So that's where the city gets the that's where we get our position that if you rent for anything less than thirty days, it's no longer a residential use anymore. Now for this particular that's sort of just the I'm trying to give you kind of the legal background and the terms of the specifics for this particular violation. We had a complainant who was also a witness. She's the one who's been requesting that the city take action on this.

We asked her to sign an affidavit, a sworn affidavit to authenticate some of the documents that she was sending to the city. I also specifically requested that she appear today in case there were questions from the board of her. I don't know if she's here or not, but if if she's not here, then we may we may ask for a continuance on the matter. But I would I would like to hear from the property owner in light of all of this.

Someone's waving.

Oh, do you

okay. Alright. So since she is here, we would ask that she be allowed to speak as part of the city's presentation before we turn it over to

the property owner.

Would you come forward, please?

And Rebecca had has more on the facts regarding this particular violation.

Good morning, board. Rebecca Mulder, code compliance manager with the City of Clearwater. Nice to see you all. So today, I'm gonna be presenting the case that Jared has been building up too. So it's 692 Bayway Boulevard, Unit 405.

It's for code section one Dash one zero four for our jurisdiction application related to the development and use of the property related to the short term rental use of this particular unit within the tourist district in a resort property or a non resort property. Notice of violation was sent and posted, went out on 06/26 and posted on 07/15, receiving the certified mail back on the seventeenth as well. As Jared mentioned, this was not something that usually when we present a case to you for violation, there are Airbnb or VRBO listings that are associated that we show you those documentations. We didn't have any of those as verification. We received multiple complaints from one of the occupants within the property at Bayway Boulevard stating that this was happening even though there wasn't evidence that we could identify through our traditional means.

She provided what you see up here from one of what she states is one of the visitors of the unit showing they showed her that that she was there from May 9 to the eighteenth and provided that to us through their her sworn affidavit. This is just a visual of the affidavit that we sent her. She did testify to that document and her observing that personally. We can ask her to come up and provide any more details. We just don't personally within the department have more than her sworn testimony.

So we're bringing that before you for you guys to determine if you deem this a violation based on the information that Jared and I and the different testimonies within the complainant and the property owner. If you do find them in violation, then we will be requesting a fine of $150 per day per violation for a one time fee of $13.50 resulting from that nine day stay rather than a continuous accruing fine because like you said we are not seeing those listings we just have the one documented. Stay that was presented to us So we'd just be looking for a one time fee. Thank you.

Do you have

any questions for me before I turn the over to No.

Okay. Can

you state your name and address for the record,

Penny LaGrande Prowl, 692 Bayway Boulevard 201, Fairwater Beach, Florida 33767.

Welcome. What would you like to tell us about today?

This has been ongoing for many years. The developer did never did not ever file paperwork, so it reverted to from the very beginning to a thirty day minimum for the state and the city codes. Around 2017, there was an uproar among owners wanting to go to seven days. The city said, sure, you can do that. 100% had to vote for that.

It has been voted on multiple times and has not been a 100% and continues to get less and less. Folks are still doing this. You guys have fined them before. They would come to cease and desist. This happened again this past fall. They were supposed to stop by the December. We had given them sufficient time, approximately two months. That did not stop. It has continued, and it has continued. And the saddest part is several of these folks are HOA board members.

We have had attorneys tell us we are not a RAD. And so with that, I think this needs to continue to be enforced and people need to be fined and it needs to stop because the residents there are becoming the victims of these people in and out.

And you've witnessed this yourself, the different people at

Yes. The at the

mean,

there are several of us that live there full time. People come in. I don't speak to them until they speak to me. Then they openly say, you know, what's good to go eat, what's good to do, and then they say, oh, well, we need to do it quick, we're only here for X amount of days.

Board, do you have any questions for Ms. Crowell? You for your time. Thank you

very much.

Thank you.

Yes. Please. Could you just speak to the review document that you provided that Rebecca presented

to the board?

The from from the nine day?

Yes.

They were a very nice family of, I believe five, from Upper New York. They were at the pool every day. I walked past them. They would, you know, say hello, and then they started asking different things. Like I said, they said, you know, they were only here nine days. And then I said, may I ask a favor of you? I said, this will not get you into trouble. I said, but they have found a way around this, and I don't know where they are getting their postings. And she said, oh, here's mine. I said, would you mind sending me that?

And she said, sure, but can I wait till I leave? She said, because I don't want to get going out on the street. And I said, absolutely. So they left. Two days later, when she got back to New York, she sent it to me.

And I was grateful for that because the burden has been put on us residents and it has to stop. And until you guys can hit them in their pocketbook, it's not going to stop. And the other thing I, and I know there's tons of legal ramifications because the short term rental has a lot of lobbyists, but they need to be held accountable too because iTrip is posting it everywhere, and the local person is Kevin. So he's just as much as fault as the homeowner.

Can you also tell the board how long you've lived in the property?

I moved there in October '20, but did not purchase it until January '21 because of roof issues. I could not get a loan.

Can you explain more about the association? You had mentioned something earlier about there being some votes. Is the most recent conversation that the association has had regarding this issue?

I know that was either last year or the year before, the HOA board went back to the attorney for the association and spoke with them about this. And then they were I'm not sure exactly how it all went. Then my husband contacted the city. The man explained to us that the developer never filed seven days or less. It is always thirty days has been and again, the issues came up again in '17 and they were all sent notices that it was not allowed.

It was a thirty day and that it again, it had to be a 100% to vote to change it and to pay the fee. That's not ever happened. I think the last count is four or five people will not, and I will never. So they'll never get a 100%. They need to quit spending the HOA money on attorneys and be held accountable to what they purchased it. And this resident did purchase this knowing it was thirty days.

Do you know if the association has hired an attorney? Are you aware of who the attorney may be?

I know that HOA board has an association has an attorney. I don't know who that is. I think it is with a firm and then it's placed in different folks' hands, but I don't know who

that is

because they're they're not there to at this point to protect me and the other residents who do not want this.

Okay. So but but are you are you saying that as far as you know, the association does does not have a formal position on this, or do they?

I can't answer that. I

don't have any further questions.

Thank you. Thank you both.

I have a question. Yes. You said that you know that the owner doing this knew it was a thirty day rule. Just out of curiosity, how do you know that?

Because her, her son, and her realtor sit down at the pool with my husband and a couple other residents, I believe, twice before she purchased, asking about the property and different things. And she was told very clearly that it was a thirty day. There had been issues, but it was thirty days.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Ms. Kroll?

No. Thank you. Thank you for your time.

Yeah,

I've got a couple of questions I'd like to ask you. I

just wanted to make kind of one comment before we pass it over to the property owner and hear their case, But for clarification, the change of use, that application and that process, it would not come to the code board. We're asking for them to do that, if that were approved through that process, then that is one way that this could come into compliance and short term rental would be allowed. We're indifferent on that because the code either allows it or it doesn't. That's their situation to figure out amongst the association. What we're here today to to say is that that's not the use that is currently approved.

And so, if they want to go through that change of use process, they can they can do that. That's one way to get to compliance or they can stop short term renting that it's either one. But I just I did want to clarify that because I'm sure that there will be questions about that process and what it requires and what it would mean. We're not really prepared to get into all that today and it's really not this really isn't the forum for that. Okay.

Thank you.

The only

question I had for you, Jared, is, there are other units in this place that are approved for transient. Do you to your knowledge, is that

It's our position that the property that as a whole containing all the units is approved only for attached dwellings. And Okay. Some of the history regarding the change of use, there's been some discussion about whether or not a single unit could apply for a channel and become a allowed transient in a single unit. Okay. Our position is that that that really doesn't work because the the community development code requirements apply to the entire property. The parking numbers may be impacted, the setbacks, the different rules apply to the entire property and to the and impact everyone.

It's kinda

where so because everybody has an interest in all these common elements, everybody needs to be involved in

that process.

That's our position.

It's kind of where I was going, trying to get the answer for, was what you just said. Okay. All right. Thank you again. Board, do you have any questions for Jared? Think he answered. Do you want to come back up? So can you tell us why you don't think that you're in violation when your developer had a bunch of, had a lot of stipulations to, for the development of it and and.

Okay. It was built in 2002. That's when it first came. Developers marketed, sold, and used as short term rentals, seven plus days. Land use designated resort facilities high in development orders on pages 38, 39, 40 resort attached did not even exist until 2009. There are three additional listings that I put in the book that you guys can look at from the original listings. They all say seven day rental. Complete copy of our bylaws state seven day rental. It's on page 20 of our bylaws. In Florida, cities generally cannot restrict duration frequency of short term rentals as this is the power reserve from the state.

And there's a copy of a document which is given to potential buyers before you buy that says if you do not agree with the bylaws, then don't close. You can get your money back. You can void the contract. Everyone in this building bought. Everybody. There's copies of the code concerned that I think is very important because when this rental occurred let me just get that real quickly. I'm Okay. Sorry I have to do this because it's bad.

Wouldn't I'm sorry to interrupt you, but wouldn't the people who bought want to go back after the developer for them saying that them not filling out the paperwork for them That to have a

predates I bought in the '23, and the bylaws have never changed, and they probably will not change because that would be up to the owners.

Have you guys got any sort of grandfather clause that says your building is grandfathered in to not have to

I have things from the code people that it says this property is within the tourist. These are poorly, you know, the ink is is very light. Therefore, a monthly rental is oh, okay. Thank you. I don't if you can see any better, but it says, this is from Sarah Green.

This property is within the tourist zone of the city. Therefore, monthly rental is not applicable. So, they're not going to enforce it. And that was when my tenants booked and we had several bookings during that time when all this came through, and then a resident wrote a letter to Mrs. Jennifer Poirier, and then they rescinded that. So we're wondering where we stand.

So they rescinded this letter?

They rescinded it, but we had bookings. And I agreed to accept the bookings that I had, and there was one booking that this violation involved. And they booked it in November when this was all in conflict and they put a deposit down, ready to go. It wasn't my fault that the city gave us permission to do it and then rescinded that order. I'd like to know why when the city gave them the order that we could this building could all be developed and then everything changed because it was used as a, it was designated as a high use, it was designated in the tourist section, and it was marketed, sold, and used that way for several years until I think it was 2000 and whatever penny said, but it wasn't, the city council didn't do the resort attached until 2009.

So we were already up and running. This condo was running as a short term rental. We all bought it. It was marketed even in '23. It still said seven day rental.

So I don't believe what Penny would say to me when she says that we were told when we talked at the pool because I had paperwork that conflicts that. So paperwork to me is more important than hearsay. I can't bring hearsay into this courtroom, but I can bring proof. And I'm bringing proof that we have seven day rental in our docks. And we have seven day that was used up until they got the cease and desist, I think it was in 2012 or '14, I don't remember that.

That predates me as well. But I bought this unit based on how it was marketed, the bylaws, and I feel I have the right to do what our bylaws state. But I do appreciate you all inviting me here because I think there is a lot of confusion. And the very fact that they have an attorney come to show you all this confusion

He normally sits right there. He's just out there in the audience today for this. He is he's our attorney, you know. Okay. We got we're flanked by him on each side.

Okay. Well, so

I'm not an attorney, but I do research.

I think this problem, if if I'm correct, it it all stems from the developer not filing the correct paperwork back when he and I got questions.

Yes. Go ahead. Me? No. Jared. Sure. Okay.

Thank you.

So I'm trying to wrap my head around this because there's a lot of pieces of data floating out here, and I'm trying to to figure out what's what. From from what I understand, number one, we've established it's in the tourist district, And in the tourist district, they normally allow seven day rentals. However, on this particular property, there was a an application or a petition or whatever that requested the change of use of this property, which at one point was allowed for tourist seven day rentals, but there was something that was filed, requested, and approved to change it to a different use. Am I correct so far?

Can I clarify? Yes. So in, prior to 2002, there was a '24 unit hotel on the property. The use that was approved at that time was called overnight accommodations. The person bought developer bought the property.

They wanted to build the condos that are there now. As part of that application, they they needed to get setbacks reduced. They needed to get some other rules, some flexibility with those. They applied for a residential condominium as part of the assurance or inducement to get the regulatory board, the CDB of the city, our community development board to approve that development with less set back

rules. Right.

And so they were saying this will be a residential condo, that's why you should grant the setback reductions. So they got a development order approval in 2002, I believe.

Built in 2000.

You have that dated in front of you somewhere.

Yeah. That's built

in 2000. I believe

he said the building was built in 2003. Well, would

make sense.

Paperwork is 2003.

So they got the approval for residential dwellings in 2002. Now, she's correct that the definition for tourist dwelling was not adopted till 2009, but it was really just a clarification that right. There's a difference between residential

dwelling There's

always been a difference. There was always the difference.

Just reworded it.

It was overnight accommodation. Okay, they just changed that overnight accommodations too.

That's our position on it.

They just changed the wording, nothing. Nothing. Was a

clarification in the definitions that this is a different type of use. And so the condo declaration, which is what she's also referring to, the seven day rule, that's their private association documents. The city, we don't enforce private association documents. Sometimes, most often, the private declaration is more strict than the city rules and so the association has a heightened level of regulation. That's the most common scenario but here it's different.

Here, the city because the development order specifically approves residential use. The city's rule is more strict than the declaration. That's our position as well on that. Then the last point, to just quickly address, they were mistakenly told that this was allowed. That's just an unfortunate mistake that we have to acknowledge and say it happens. This is obviously why I'm here to try to help explain all this. It is admittedly more complicated than the normal case. That's why I'm here trying to help explain and this is our position on it. So, you know, there's obviously they have a different position.

You're also saying that when you say the private declaration that's the same thing as the bylaws basically?

Well, I think those are two different documents. Assuming she's referring to the declaration when she says the bylaws but I'm not because I didn't see exactly what she was talking about. I'm assuming those are two different documents. They don't they're not really relevant in our view. Right. Because the city doesn't have we don't enforce those. Right. If they wanted to change their bylaws and their declaration they can't. All we're saying is go through our change of use process to allow for this change. And then, you know, whether who applies for that, how they how many people need to sign the application, all that, all those sorts of logistical questions about that process is sorted out in a different way through the city.

That goes through the CDB, the planning department handles those applications. We haven't it hasn't happened. So we've been asking for it. It's my understanding. I think some of the staff can speak to the factual details of that.

My understanding is that we've been asking for them to go through that process, sort it out amongst the association, come up with whatever their group solution is, come in and apply. If the staff denies it, there's an appeal for that to the CDB where the members of the association can come, they can speak to the CDB, they can tell their case there on whether the use should be changed or not. That's a separate process. All we're saying here now is that it never happened, it hasn't happened, and until it happens, there's no short term available allowed.

From what I understand from the president of the association, there has been two attempts to try to go through that program, and we never get it up to a next level. So it's been very frustrating.

So you're not necessarily grandfathered in, you just, they just changed a word. The rules still apply, they just changed a word to, I guess, to whatever the

The approved use.

The approved use. You

know, it

wasn't We attached that

dwelling. I think that's what it was stated. And then it became a resort attached dwelling in 2009. And we think we should be been grandfathered into this because we were already being used as a short term rental. It was marketed, sold, used until that time. And then in 'twelve is when they, I think, got cease and desist orders on their doors, and here we are.

Said that occurred in 2012?

I think when they got their cease and desist it was 2012, but the resort attached happened in 2009, and I think most of the current Board members were not there at that time. I'm a board member, and I would like to get this resolved that we can't rent because that's how it was sold. Right. And it's very frustrating. I'm a widow that my husband died in 2022, and I bought this place, and I thought this would be a great place for my kids to come, and I could also use it for income.

So my income has been depleted because of all these rules. I can't rent until it's thirty days now, and, you know, I also think that the property is being depreciated because of, you know, there's a police station, and there's a building next to us that is renting three days, you know, so it's like, would like to be able to rent as our docs say. Pardon?

I said they haven't come, property hasn't come before us yet, but now that we're aware of

it, I'm sure our company might

go out

Well, it's advertised.

They may

be quoted through it. And I

think that's the only

one And they on might the island be approved for that too.

And it's the only one on the island, the one they advertise to that.

Yeah. That's question here is that you guys just didn't get the approval for the building. Regardless of how it was marketed or sold to you, I mean, I can say that my car is in perfect condition.

Know. But I want to I Being want to a real estate broker, I know that when a buyer goes to buy a condo, they depend on what's provided by the condo. Yes. And the docs clearly say, no lease shall be valid or approved for a term less than one week. Right here. And then I just want to make another comment because you can't always trust what the realtor say. Being a realtor, I know this, But I just noticed that there were two listings in 2004 and 2005, same realtor, all three listings, she says one to seven days, but then in the listing in 2018, she says minimum lease period one week. So she even changed what she was saying. Right, because it

only said seven days.

Yeah. But does this this couldn't supersede what the city's ordinance

I understand, but what the What buyer

they're saying, what they're being told.

What the buyer reviews are the condo docs. They don't necessarily go, okay, to the city, is this true? Because this is what the condo provided.

And it's the original documents.

Yeah, I just wanted to make that comment. Okay,

you're welcome.

But that it goes, that it's against city code is a different situation. That's what we're talking about here, pitting us.

Well, I would like the board to take a look at everything that's provided there, because I think it is a history, and we need to take care of that history.

That's a lot for us to look at in

a short

period of time.

The pages say it, if you're, if I

can What

are the dates of the letter that you had that was rescinded, and what was the date of the rescission date, or letter?

I'm sorry, I don't understand

your It's right here in this package.

Okay, here.

I know you're still back there. I'm not

I'll give it to you. I

don't need to see it.

All right. Any other questions? Well,

do we have any other questions? Mean, I'm kind of stumped right now.

What were the dates of the rental?

What's that? What were the dates of the rental?

It was '9

May 9 through May 18, I believe,

this year?

Yep, of this year.

So based on the rules, it was in violation. Now it's a matter of deciding how they got to that point of being in violation.

It's Fair. Do you want to if there's no more questions, we can ask them to sit down so you

can Yeah,

you want go

ahead and

sit down.

Yeah, go ahead try. Thank you.

Miss Carl, did you want to come back up and move? Had to say something. And

that was 11/12/2024.

Is from the Go

ahead and stick it on

the hanger there so we can see. So that was six months before.

Yeah, before that.

Six months before the rental, it was resent, the earlier letter was clarified and resented.

But it only went to these people. It didn't necessarily go to everyone in the building.

Can't hear you guys. That

goes in the back of the red folder.

Go ahead, ma'am. What's this?

This is from the city saying how it can be changed since yes. Our HRE docs say seven days, but the city overrides that. After that, the state overrides the city, and after that, the federal overrides that. I understand that from a legal perspective. Seven days doesn't mean anything. I I bought in '21. We knew this issue. It was brought to us by our, excuse me, realtor. My husband called prior to closing, and they said, yes. It is thirty days.

But in your packet that you got from your realtor, like this one, it said seven days?

The the HOA docs say seven days. The realtor was very clear. They had went through

all

this rigmarole because of the developers saying it was seven and it was not. And I understand that. I don't think there's one person left in

Your husband called the city, yes, though, to to check.

To check. And we have verified that again a year later when it all starts unraveling again. Again, it takes all 15 owners to vote. It has been voted on. One of the I think this is the last time. It was in '22, August '22. It did not pass. I I again, it's only as good as the paper it's written on. The HOA docs may never change, but it's still not seven days. The city says it is thirty days, 100% resident vote, $400 application fee.

Not gonna happen in my lifetime. We've had other residents that got on and had their own attorney verify that we are not a RAD.

RAD?

Res resort attached dwelling.

Thank you. So

this this email we're looking at here, this is did we leave that on the screen? This is this is sorry. Sorry. Your microphone is there. I was

looking at the wrong mic. Heard me your microphone. Okay.

Is from who to who?

This is to my husband from the city of Clearwater.

Okay. So it was sent to you. It wasn't necessarily something he has.

And it told how if our community came together and wanted to change it, what had to be done.

K.

It's not gonna pass.

I gotcha.

They will never get a 100%.

Got it. Okay.

Right. Do you have the board, do you have any more questions for Mr. Crowell?

I'm trying to write a motion.

I thank you. Thank you.

All right, board, I'm kind of stuck. I mean, if anyone else has any clarity on this. No. It is

the violation as I understand. Exactly. It's that it's that clear ability. You can

Mister chair? Yes. May I make a comment? We're so just in closing on this on this matter, we we're asking that there be a a finding of a violation. You've been you've heard evidence that a booking occurred. I don't think that they object to to that. It sounds like they're just objecting to the to the the application of the rule. You've heard our explanation of of how the what the rule is, how it applies. The the declaration, the the private restrictions between the association and those private documents are separate than the city rules. Hopefully, I've explained that adequately for you.

We're just asking that you find that there be a violation. If you want to go ahead and make a motion to that effect, maybe there could be more deliberation on the fine amount. We have suggested a fine amount based on the fact that we know the booking had already occurred. We're not aware that they're advertising still. It's our position that it's not allowed until the use is formally changed through the process.

And they you know, whether that passes or who needs to apply, all that separate process. But we're just asking for the finding of the violation based on the past booking. If you want to make a motion to that, then you can deliberate on whether or not the suggested fine amount is appropriate. But we made that suggestion in light of the fact that it should have some deterrent effect on the future if you agree with us that this is in fact activity that's prohibited unless and until it's changed.

I have a question. Were all of the owners notified of the city's standing?

There have been conversations, obviously. There there's there's actually been some litigation with the city. I haven't mentioned it because I don't think it necessarily has relevance to this particular proceeding. But we are we're doing the best that we can to clarify our position on everything to as many of the residents. I've requested staff to notify folks of this.

We have adjusted the way that the notices read in the past. We as I explained earlier, we were referencing a residential zoning district, and and that's because our those notices were automated by a software that we use. So because this got a little bit unusual, I I assisted the staff to try to clarify the the city's explanation of all this in our notices. So we've we've tailored our notices a little bit better to try to explain in the future. Other than that, we're just going through our normal code enforcement procedures with this.

I mean, basically, what we're here to do today, I mean, what only us board, the board can do is determine whether between May 9 and May 18, they were in violation

of the

30, you

know, less

than thirty days.

Are we closing public comment? I mean public questions so we can move forward to the board.

Ms. Muller, would you like to wrap up something?

I think Jared summed up our request from the board. Well, we're just looking for a determination based on the evidence that was provided to us within the department from the property owner, one of the other property owners of the violation.

Ma'am, you you come back up and say, your closing, statements. But, basically, what we're here, the power of our board is is only going to be to determine whether you win violation between May 9. However you got there, that's not for us to decide. But between May 9 and May 18, were in violation of the city's short term rental code, and that's what we're here to determine, and we have determined that you were. We haven't made any determination. We haven't made a motion.

We haven't determined that yet. I

think there's been so

much The evidence that has been provided

Condiction here?

Shows that you have were in violation between May 9 and May 18.

Well, even the city employee said that we could do it, and then all of a sudden someone else, after a letter was written, said we couldn't. I was not provided all that until the very end. So I think when we honor something that the city said we could do, that's on the city. I don't think it should be on me. I don't.

Wait. Wait. Wait. Hold on. The seats have stopped at some point. You've heard all the arguments. Yeah. You know, this has to come back to the board for deliberation. No disrespect, but this is you've heard all the evidence that's here. Now you're hearing just interpretation and argument as to the evidence. It's for this board to decide.

Thank you, ma'am.

Chairman? Yes. I would suggest we do the first section of this and then see if there's any further discussion on it.

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

Second. Second.

All in favor? Aye.

All opposed? Motion approved.

My comment is that there seems to be a lot of confusion and lack of understanding, and there's a lot of documentation involved. I can understand what the city's position is, and I can also understand what the property owner's position And I think that based on clarifications that have occurred from the city and what their bylaws say and etcetera, etcetera, that I just understand their position. And so with that, my question is what would an appropriate fine, if any, would be?

I have the recommendation that any fine should be waived because of the confusion, and that they need to cease and desist any type of short term rentals, and then we just go forward.

Is that a motion that can be made, Andy? Yes. You don't

have to institute a fine.

Mr. Bluff, do

we waive

it or do we just put

no fine?

I would put no fine.

So I'll make a motion that

Hang on a second. What about subsequent violations? Do we want to keep that language in there?

That's already, that's by law, that's in effect based on your first motion. If there's a repeat, then it goes up to the repeat section of the statute.

Does the motion have to be everything in there?

No, no, you could just say

So I think there'd be a motion that there'd be no fine issued, and that they need to cease and desist any type of short term rentals.

I'll second that.

Can you say that again a little bit louder?

I was

having trouble with my So

the audience can hear you.

I make a motion that there is no fine issued in this case and that the condo needs to cease and desist any short term rentals

going forward.

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Alright. Motion carries. Do you understand our our decisions? Thank you. Okay. Moving on to 4.4 on our agenda, case number 74Dash25, fine respondents, Trung Fan at 1408 Rogers Street in violation for short term rental and residential business tax receipt, wishing an order with the compliance deadline and if fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this? Will you please come forward? State your name and address for the record, please.

June Phan, 1408 Rogers Street, Clearwater.

Could you spell your name

for me?

T r u n g p h a n.

Thank you.

Mister Fan, do you admit or deny the violation?

We already talked to you that, we already got that handle, with the person that render our property and it's just taking a guess, so he will talk

about that.

But for the but for

the violation, do you admit it or

do We you don't know what happened.

So You don't know whether you admit it or you you you denied the violation?

Should I say I'm

just asking you a question. Do you did you are you do you admit to the violation or or or you deny the violation? There was no violation? Or was there a violation?

You can have the violation and then fix it.

Yeah. Not like

There's no contest? Is that what

you're saying?

No contest? Contest is a plea where you're not denying the evidence. So if you wanna do that as an admission, I'd rather take it as a declaration of denial and let's just move forward. Yeah. Because there's I don't want there to be confusion. Okay.

This case, just a bit helps clarify everything, I did speak to him earlier today. What it was basically trying to say was there was another family member that was renting this out, they didn't realize it. And he took down the posting or whatnot. So as of today, technically it is in compliance. So I would just like a declaration of violation. And I talked to him about that what what happened if it should occur again and whatnot.

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 enter the 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 if the violation continues to exist.

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Next case is 4.5 on our agenda. Case 75Dash25, find respondents. Burham Shala at 1261 Prince Street in violation of code for exterior storage and residential business tax receipt and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? No? Checkers Stevens, you have the floor.

Alright. Good afternoon, board. You guys may remember this case from, last time. This is gonna be case number 7525Regarding 1261 Pierce Street. This property, was before you guys last time for a lot clearing, and this is just a continuation of this in a way.

So this property is actually a duplex. We have two violations here for code section three dash 15 o, two g one g two g three for outdoor storage prohibited. The outdoor storage prohibited items are not intended for outdoor use and outdoor storage of construction materials. And then the second violation is the code section three dash, twenty three zero two for residential rental business tax receipt, for them not having one. The original, this this case started in the May and I was working with the tenant there was a little bit of improvement.

I've sent the violations to the property owner. And they never picked up the mail so I had to go out there and actually post the property on June 10 with a compliance date of July 2, and I did receive the certified mail back on June 14. This is a picture of the posting on the tenth as well as the property itself. You can see in the front there, it's got two mailboxes on each side. There's a rear unit and a front unit, and the problem is really coming from the side or rear unit, which is where all the storage issues are except for one other spot that I will show you here on the property in moment.

So this property here has a boatload as you can see of different items that are stored outside and it varies from everything. There's a little bit of things that can be outdoor use such as bicycles, but then there was raw food out there. There's I've seen blankets, I've seen backpacks, know, suitcases, things of that nature. And it's very transient, seems like it happens to come and go a lot, but it stays in this type of status here every time that I've been at the property. So that was on the tenth.

And, of course, I think it's fogging up on me probably because of pictures here, so just bear with me a moment. Let's see if it's gonna load the next one.

That was a job that was here last time. Tenant.

Let's try this real quick. I'm gonna do it this way.

I might have been the one with the doc. Remember?

Can you guys see that by chance the dates on it or no?

We can try to

put it back up. This is on July 2, the compliance date. You can see there on the picture on the right, there's actually the raw foods that's outside, things of that nature. Actually like yogurt containers and things. And then on the second, I also happen to notice from walking back to my truck that I could see this piece of plywood that was stood up over on the other side of the property and kind of see there's some items back there.

I just couldn't tell what they were because I couldn't get back to it. But we'll address that here momentarily. This is on July 14 when I was back out there doing another inspection. The twenty third. And then this was today and you can see that same side and that piece of wood which is laying down the ground that I've got underlined in red there.

There are Rubbermaid bins containing who knows what stacked over in that far corner of the property as well. And then over on the other side of the property where the rear unit is still not really any change just a different variety of items out there. So let's focus on the business tax receipt now. This was actually the beginning of the case. They did the last BTR for residential rental that was on this property was back in 2002.

The ownership had changed place back in, looks like 2024. And you can see there's not a business tax receipt there that this case at the top is the one that I have opened for this particular case. And going through our utilities department, I was able to check and see that there is an active utilities account for 1259 Pierce. And when I drove through it a little bit more, I ended up finding an actual, copy of a handwritten lease here showing that they're paying $1,700 per month plus a $250 pet deposit for that property. And then this is on, I don't know why it's cutting off the bottom of my slide there, but this is gonna be I believe on July 2 showing that they still had not obtained their business tax receipt.

This one should be for today's date showing that you not have a business tax receipt. So compliance can be met for the outdoor storage by storing all the items that are not designed for outdoor use or items that would be considered construction materials in the garage, interior of the residence, or remove them from the property by the compliance date. Compliance can be met for the residential rental business tax receipt by obtaining a residential rental business tax receipt and maintaining it every year that the unit is rented. And then we are requesting compliance on or before September 27 or a fine of a $150 per day for the outdoor storage violation and a fine of $50 per day for the residential, rental business tax receipt for each day that those violations continue to exist.

These two you, Mr.

Stevens, does anyone have any questions?

Are these two separate declarations? We do them as one, right?

You can do

them as one. Yeah.

It came as one case.

I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye.

All opposed? Motion approved.

What was the date on there? September '20 move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations to honor before 09/27/2025, 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 be assessed. If the fines and fees remain unpaid three months after settling is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect,

or settle such lien. What

he showed there had two different amounts of fines for two different violations. So 150 a day on here does not address the $50 on the second violation.

The BTR. $100

for the BTR. So

the motion should include those two separate amounts.

Right. Okay. How do we do the motion? Can I just do both amounts in it separately? It's one, I'd

You say one can do both

the same time. You just $1.50 for the one and

then Spell it out separately. I move to enter an order requiring the respondents to correct the violation to honor before 09/27/2025. The respondents not comply by that date. A board may order a fine of $150 and also fine for $50 for the VTR per day per violation for each date if each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid. Three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect or settle such lien.

Second. All in favor? Aye. All in Motion to board. Alright. Next is 4.6 on our agenda, case 76Dash25. Find respondents, Lika, Redzale and Mizemi Rev Trust at 9 Octurus Avenue in violation of code for 9 North Octurus Avenue in issue in order with compliance and deadline find, and find if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Will you come forward, please? Please state your name and address for the record, please.

Zannette Hashani, 1455 Lyme Street, Clearwater 33756.

Alright. Mister Shani, do you, admit or deny the violation?

I admit it.

Admit it? Yep. Alright. If you'll have a seat for just a second.

And, board, this is gonna be noted on these cases that we're seeking a declaration of violation as of this morning. The property has come into compliance.

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

All opposed? Thank you. Motion approved.

Thank you, board.

Alright. 4.7 to 4.8 have been withdrawn on our agenda. 4.9, case 70Nine-twenty5, find respondents Gilbert Ginelli at 2300611 US Highway 19 North in violation of code for prohibited signage and issue an order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

Yep. And we

have the attachment. This is the attachment. Sir,

will you come forward, please? Will you please state your name and address for the record?

Surely, Gilbert Ginelli, 909 South Fort Harrison Avenue, Clearwater 33756.

Mr. Ginelli, do you admit or deny the violation?

I admit.

All righty.

I move to find a respondent in violation.

I'm sorry. I move to

a respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion

approved. Mr. Berger.

Good afternoon, Board. Steven Berger, site inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is case 70Nine-twenty5 for 23,611 U. S. 19. And before I start, I would ask our assistant city attorney to speak to that because there's an annexation agreement that has to be further explained.

Thank you. Jared Simpson, assistant city attorney with the code enforcement team. I just have a lot less to say, I promise, on this one. I just did wanna point to your attention that what you'll hear from mister Burkhart is that bill billboards are prohibited signs in the city of Clearwater. When something was already there at the time that is prohibited, we refer to that as a nonconforming use.

People use the term grandfathered in a lot. The legal term we use is nonconformity. This property was actually in the county and it was annexed through a voluntary annexation process. Whenever the city annexes in property from the county and the property owner does that voluntarily, the city and that property owner can kind of negotiate some of the the terms of how those non conforming structures are addressed. Either they can eliminated immediately or they can be amortized out over a period of time.

Those are all points of negotiation that the parties can can discuss and negotiate and come to an agreement. So, with this property, that was done. You can see here in February 2022, we have an annexation agreement between the city and the property owner. This is a recorded document. So, it it's in the public records.

If the property is sold or anything like that, it should pop up in a title search and it runs with the land. The agreement specifically says it runs with the land. I just highlight here that this was the owner that was requesting the voluntary annexation. And then a couple of terms just to highlight for you throughout the billboards that were on the property were determined to be non conforming so they were prohibited at the time of annexation by the city code. So everybody agreed they were non conforming.

The parties also agreed that code liens are appropriate remedies in the event of a breach of the agreement. And then, you know, again, just acknowledging that billboards are prohibited in the city so no new billboards can be constructed in the city unless a code amendment occurs which has not occurred. Billboards are still prohibited in the city of Clearwater. Normal repair and maintenance shall be performed. So, the city was basically saying you can keep it but you gotta it has to look nice and be safe and all that.

During the time period that you're allowed to keep it and then, the key provision why we're here today is that the owner and the developer and the city, everyone that was part of this agreement agreed that on 01/01/2025 the billboard would be removed. So at that point in time, the billboard became a prohibited sign. It was no longer a grandfathered nonconforming use after that date. And this was something that the property owner agreed to with the city at the time that the property was annexed in 2022. And then I just I did want to say also that you'll hear from Steven the city's recommendation.

We're requesting a fine be imposed, but I did want to highlight that the the agreement does specifically acknowledge that the city could enter and remove the billboard. That was something that was discussed and and agreed in this agreement. So even though we're asking for a fine today, we we're notifying the board, we're notifying the property owner and everyone that we would reserve that right to go and remove the billboard if it doesn't get removed. Even though the board imposes a fine, we can discuss that depending on what his position is. But I did want to highlight that so that there's not any confusion.

Just because we're seeking a fine does not mean that we're waiving other rights and remedies that we may have as a city within this agreement. And then the last thing, just to clarify, this is binding on the parties and it goes to their heir successors in a sign. So if they're planning to sell the property or if they've already sold it or they're in negotiation or whatever, it it wouldn't matter as far as we're concerned. This agreement runs with the land and that sign is prohibited as of January year.

Simpson, does the city's right to, as it says here, to enter the property at any time on or after January 1 removal, does that fall into our abatement?

We would probably bring it back. There may be other legal avenues that we could go to enforce that, but we wouldn't just show up and do that.

Well, no, like how we do our, you know, our stuff, to an abatement. Or

Yes. They He's gonna

get open to that for later.

That's why I mention it because if if if for if say the board approved to what we're requesting and then months went by and the billboard was still there, we would probably come back and at that time

ask for the board

to authorize abatement. Okay. But after not not committing that that would be the what we would do, but that is possibility. So that's why I mentioned it. Okay.

That's what I

was trying

to go with.

Mr. Juvekar? Go ahead with your presentation.

All right. So there's one violation for Code Section three-eighteen oh four. Billboard signs are prohibited style of sign and shall not be allowed to be erected anywhere within the city limits of Clearwater. Just a little definition of billboard sign is off premise sign that exceeds 24 square feet. The notice of violation was mailed in 06/09/2025.

Compliance date, 07/09/2025. And certified mail came back in June 2625. So that case goes a little bit back. I did routine inspection of the sign. Actually, it was before the hurricanes in 09/14/2024.

And there was some concerns about maintenance issues with the sign. So the structure shell deterioration, You can see wood rot, the what we call the catwalk upon the sign was deteriorated, also showing wood rot. And there's a ladder on that side, a metal ladder that was warped and rusty. So it was just concerns that the sign was not safe anymore. And as you see, the poles are show wood rot and deterioration.

And you can see that the sign basically is at the end of its life cycle already. So these pictures are taken after the hurricanes in October '4. And you can see from here the latter is warped and the whole structure is in need of maintenance basically and not in good shape anymore. Another picture. And so the the after the storm, the entire structure tilted five degrees southwards,

as you

can see. So that pole here is from the where the electric is. There's the meter attached, and you can see how far the sign is tilted already. Stuck. Alright. Okay. And I noticed in January 25, there's a work crew working on the sign. There is here a large crane. You can see there's a little excavator, a truck with cement bags, and they were working on the sign. There's no permit for for this type of work.

So I I started a stop work order at this point. And give me one second. It takes very long presentation. Computer is slow. So they didn't change anything of the structure. They they made the sign plumb, so it's just stabilizing the sign. But again, that type of work would need a

permit. Here.

Again, and it was after after the annexation agreement asked for demolishing the sign. It was already past that date. This was done in 06/09/2025. The picture again is a it's it's again used for advertising. You can see a face panel there.

And that was

yesterday, August 26. So the sign is still present at the location or eight months after it should be demolished already.

All right.

Pictures. Again, it's still the same situation shows deterioration. And all right. Compliance can be met by removing the sign and the sign structure by the compliance date. Commendation for the case, 7925, requesting compliance on or before 09/27/2025, if the violation continues to exist and post a fine of $250 per day, each day the violation continues to exist. Any questions?

Board, do we have any questions for Scherberger? No? I do not. Mr.

Chinle? Yes sir.

Would you like to approach the podium? I don't really know what I'm going to ask you, but you already admitted to the violation of it.

Yeah, there's just a little backdrop to this situation here. First of all, we were considering naming the sign as a historic sign because it's been there for fifty eight years, But the sign is actually coming down. We had a contract to sell the property with a closing date in 'twenty two. And the as you remember, the Fed started fooling around with the interest rates in 'twenty two, and a lot of developers, including the one that we had under contract, backed away. And so, in order to develop the property, there's actually four parcels on this particular property.

Two of them are in the city and two are in the county. And so, in order to develop, you got to annex into the city. So even though it was a voluntary annexation agreement to eliminate the billboards, the city wouldn't take the property unless I agreed to remove the billboards. So we did that, and you saw the annexation agreement. Since that time, the developer backed away.

We have a development order in place for two seventy units. We are very soon going to submit another application for a new developer for three fifty four units, of which the billboard sign is coming down regardless of this hearing. What I'm asking is and the city has been very gracious in allowing us to keep the billboard through this time, not denying that at all. There are contracts in place with the I don't own the billboard, I own the property and lease it to a billboard company. They were upset about sunsetting the billboard without any compensation, and they were considering a lawsuit against the city to go after some compensation under eminent domain.

They decided not to do that. They have agreed to take the billboard sign down. What I'm asking for is some additional time to let the contracts expire that are with the vendors on the billboard sign and with me. So we the signs coming down if we were not here and all this were not taking place, the sign would come down anyway with a new development with a new site plan. And the site plan that was submitted to the city through the development order did not it wound up without having a billboard sign on it.

So I'm just asking for we're going to take it down. I'd like to get some extended time beyond the Septembers as the city is requesting. So it can be a smooth transition. So the contracts that are in place with the advertisers and the sign owner and me expire. They would? That was actually the January 15, but they've cut that to if we could get by December 31.

That's a lot of time. That's a whole lot

of time. Well, you know, in answer to that question, the sign's been there for sixty something years. There's I believe the city has had no complaints for any citizens.

But it did have a finish date of January. That was the finish date for it to specify, right? That was in the agreement.

Right. And the reason the city gave me some extra time is because we were hoping that a new developer would come onto the picture sooner, but fortunately, the economy wasn't right for these kind of developments. Trump was elected. You see things improving. My phone is ringing off the hook. There are developers interested in that property and for multifamily use.

That's ninety more days. Actually, no,

that was actually not that much when you think about that.

What are you what's your thoughts on this?

Chair. Yes. I I think the city would like to speak on the issue. Yes.

Mister Simpson, come forward, please.

Sure. I just did want to make a couple of comments on the I did provide an additional document that you may have in your packet that is the State Department of Revenue's life expectancy of an asset, and billboards are listed in there and they're twenty year life expectancy. I appreciate the testimony regarding the length of time that it's been there, but I think that that's actually evidence that it's far beyond its its life expectancy in terms of an asset. With regard to the billboard's attorney, I did notify the billboard's attorney about the hearing today, and they made no indication to me whatsoever that they plan to attend or participate in in any way. They did contact up my office and request more information.

We provided them the annexation agreement, and then we did not hear anything else from them at all. So there's been no notification to the city that there's been any kind of anticipated litigation. So I just wanted to add those.

I can add to that. I talked to them out of moving forward, because they would have sued me and the city as well, and there's no reason for that.

We don't want anyone to get sued, I mean, you know, we do understand though there was a contract with them and that's what they're gonna be losing out on is if you have to bring it down by the way, they're gonna lose out, you know, the money they paid and somebody's gonna have to pay that back.

Board, what's your thoughts on this? Mr. Kinney?

I have

a question. Yeah.

Did the billboard company know that you signed a contract saying the sign would be down as of January?

Yes, but they had contracts already in place with advertisers and with me.

Okay. But you signed it anyway, knowing that they had contracts, that it would come down, but knowing that it wouldn't?

They had a contract with me, which, but I didn't know about, it's not my business to know about their vendor contracts, you know, with the billboard that's, they pay me rent.

I understand. Okay. But did they I guess my question is, did they get contracts after you told them the sign was coming down January 1?

I can't answer that for sure, but I think they did not, because they knew the billboard sign was according to the they had the development order. They were seriously considering suing. They hired an

attorney to

look into it. And we I was not happy with that, and so we talked about it, and I said, there's no reason to sue the city. The city has been nice. They've extended this. There's no reason to sue it. Billboard sign's coming down anyway, regardless of whether we were here or not.

Thank you.

So your arrangement is with the owner of the billboard because you don't own it, correct?

That's correct. We lease the property to the billboard company.

All right,

And so they have an independent arrangement with whoever they whoever puts up a banner and advertises that, correct? And you're not involved in

that? No. No. I'm not involved in the management of that of that board sign.

Okay. You did you notify the the billboard I mean, the the sign owner of this agreement that it was coming down?

They they know all they know all about the hearing, the agreement. They know everything.

Okay. So they knew that there was this annexation agreement provided for the sign coming down? Yes. As of last January?

January.

Right. Okay.

Yes.

Good. And the city has been cooperative in not pushing this.

Right.

And, you know, I'm asking just for a little bit more time. It's, you know, it's there's there's contracts in place and it would be a smoother transition if we could just extend it.

How long ago was the contract with the billboard executed?

Let's see. Well, not trying to be facetious.

A long time

ago? Years ago,

my dad. There wasn't any provision in there

for The fine starts.

You're you know, transfer of the property or any governmental regulation Leases go with the property. Chair,

have to record this, so please no cross talking while someone else is speaking. I'm sorry.

Agreements go with the property, not with the individual.

It would seem to me the smoothest, easiest thing for us and Mr. Giannelli would be to give it until the December, then it's got it, and then give him like fifteen days to get it down. That's what? That allows his to remain in place, and granted it's still the only downside to that is the amount of time allowed, but from my perspective, that's the smoothest thing to do. January 15. And if you guys want to do something different, I

don't know. There's a problem with that. I agree.

So put a January 15 date on it, something like that.

Down to fifteenth January.

That was my suggestion, is January 15. If you wanna go to the eleventh, that's my birthday.

Okay. Does somebody make a motion?

I mean, I have your May I make a comment? Yes.

Sorry. You're hearing a lot from me today.

It's okay.

Okay. The the the agreement that was adopted and recorded the public records and went through the hearing process, that was all approved by counsel. So that deadline is, we're beyond that deadline. If the board kind of delays its, I guess, just hearing the conversation, if what is being talked about if that's what it's approved it wouldn't really affect the city's ability to try to enforce the remedies of that agreement through some other legal process so I did want to be clear about about that so that there's not a misunderstanding between all the parties here. The agreement's clear.

The deadline in the agreement's clear. The agreement says that we can seek relief to remove the billboard and that sort of thing. You've heard the evidence. It's well beyond its life expectancy as an asset. It's well beyond the deadline in terms of what was already agreed to in the in the annexation agreement in terms of whether or not add buyers have contracts with the tenant or these other things.

So, we haven't really seen any paperwork to support any of that in terms of what this extended deadline should be. Mean, we'd like to see that if we're deferring to that. I understand we don't have that today. That's that is what it is but we're beyond the deadlines of all the recorded documentation for that. So, just want to say that. I guess I don't if if the deadline is extended out, the city would probably be exploring other avenues to get compliance.

So, Chair, basically, you're being told that no matter what you do, it doesn't matter. It's coming down.

That's right. It's coming down.

Lot thickens. Yeah.

Rebecca Mulder, Code manager. I just just to add to a clarification, what we're presenting to you is a a case whether or not this billboard is in violation of of our code that it's a prohibited sign. And then if you find it in violation, can associate fines potentially or not, however you seem fit. But what we're presenting on is if it is a violation or is not a violation and whether or not you wanna associate fines with that. And then the annexation would be something separate that legal would, work with the property owner to to resolve.

Thank you.

Well, the board's already determined by law. The question I think the board is asking from the city is what time period we've already heard from the request through January. So I think the board wants to hear what the city wants to say regarding the time period or proposal may be that we ask for an update in sixty days because if something falls through with this agreement, the board may just want to have this removed from their perspective. I mean, obviously, the city can do whatever they want.

I don't think that we can agree to a specific date unless we can see some documentation of what Mr. Giannelli is talking about. Otherwise, we have an agreement that we all agreed to in terms of what the deadline was. I'm sorry. Sorry. I was hoping I could.

You don't have to.

Interfere with this space here but that we have a deadline and agreement that was already agreed upon that we're that we're passed. So, if we're talking about extending that agreement, that's something that the count, our position is the city council would need to to amend that agreement through the city council process. Now, if the board wants to delay the imposition of a fine under the board's authority because the board has the authority to do that. We acknowledge that, of course. If that's what the board is inclined to do, then it doesn't override the terms of the agreement, I guess, is what I'm saying. The agreement is still clear that there's a deadline in place.

And I think the Board knows that. I think the question becomes, what are you really, I mean, violation has already been determined by the Board. It was admitted to.

And admitted to that.

So the question really becomes, what do people want the board to do? Because you could do the city, obviously, if the board said, hypothetically, we'll give you five years, the city can come in and do whatever they want. If you want a short period of time and because all the this all board has to give a reasonable time period to come in compliance, that can be ten days. I mean, so it's kind of what do you all want to do? Otherwise, let's just assume you do ten days and they don't do it until January, then you have a fine running.

I mean, that's if the idea here is to get compliance. So I'm trying to figure out what's the best way for you all to make that determination.

Well, we could determine whatever we determine today and the city

could come in tomorrow or Friday and be out there

with bulldozers or whatever they are to tear it down.

Right. They have an agreement. Yeah.

They already have an agreement that we that has nothing to do with us. We're just trying to find out if he's in violation and we already did file Right. It

So you have violation. So then I would say the board just needs to determine a compliance date and a fine and failure to come in compliance.

What is

the amount of the fine that the city is requesting? $2.50 a day.

$2.50 a day.

Just to the contract was signed by you, Doctor.

Giannelli, correct?

And it was not contingent upon your tenant's agreement?

Correct. Okay.

I just Yeah. Wanted to make

We're I'm not denying the violation. We signed the agreement. The city is asking for thirty days. I'm asking for a little longer time, which the Board has granted on a number of occasions in the past for, you know, for whatever violation.

But there may not have been a contract. I think that we have to stick to what the city wants, because otherwise they can come in and do whatever they want, no matter what we say anyway.

Well, don't we