Municipal Code Enforcement Board - Regular Meeting

Wednesday, 09/24/2025. Welcome, everyone. Please rise to 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 the chambers. Please remember to silence your cell phones. The municipal code enforcement board consists of seven members who are appointed by the city council. We serve voluntarily. It is this board's intention to promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Clearwater by providing this equitable, effective, and inexpensive method of enforcing certain codes within the city. This code this 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, please rise and be sworn in by our clerk.

Do you swear upon us tell the truth by your entire testimony? I do. Thank you.

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

Motion to approve. Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Minutes are approved. Is there anyone here today to speak on items that are not on our agenda? Please come forward. State your name and address to our clerk for the record, please.

I'm mister Haluba. My address is well known. The clerk has my address. Now, mister Brown, Florida statute chapter one sixty two zero six states, a person who reports potential violation

of a

code or an ordinance must provide his or her name and address to their respective local government before any enforcement proceeding may occur. That's home address. Now I believe this statute, is in place to prevent weaponization of code enforcement. Now for a very long time, code enforcement in the city of Clearwater was generated by citizen complaint only. But, apparently, with the arrival of Alfred Battle, code enforcement officers, you know, like mister Kasman and the others, are being, wrongfully allowed and actually pushed to initiate violations, or perhaps there would have been no problem at another time.

Again, this is wrongful, and I believe it needs to stop. If there is no citizen complaint, there should be no issue. Now any Clearwater code officer that, you know, initiates actions on their own are blatant examples of improper government overreach. Now chapter one sixty two also requires members of the enforcement board, which is all of you, be residents of the municipality. That would be Clearwater.

I believe that's a reasonable requirement. However, the members of this board are required to be Clearwater residents according to the chapter. This is a Florida open records request for you and each and every one of you to disclose your name and home address.

Thank you, sir. All right. Is there anyone else here to speak on things that are not on our agenda today? Okay. Next on the agenda are new business items. Our first case is 4.1 on our agenda. Case number 89Dash25, find respondents CWD Downton Downtown Properties LLC at 531 in violation of code for door and window openings and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that? No? Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir.

I'm involved in this project, so I will be recusing myself on this one. Okay.

You are recused from this case then, sir.

Thank you.

Mister Kasman, you have the floor.

In this case for 531 Cleveland Street, they came to compliance before the board hearing. So on this one, I'm requesting 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 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.

Do have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right, on to 4.2 of our agenda case number 90Dash255 respondents La Vista Group LLC at 416 Laura Street in violation of code for fences and walls and exterior services and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? No. And Mr. Chairman? Yes, I must recuse myself from this. Okay. You are recused then. All right. Mr. Kasman, you have the floor.

And similarly in this case, for 416 Morris Street, they came into compliance before the hearing date, so this is also a declaration of violation, All right.

Can I get the declaration?

I move to find 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. The respondent repeats the violation. The board may order a fine of the $500 for each date the violation continues to exist.

And a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next on our agenda is 4.3, case 90One-twenty5, fine respondents Greg sixteen LLC at 721 Mandalay Avenue in violation for code, for fences and walls and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? No? Inspector Kasman, you have the floor.

Three times the charm. In this one, the owner came in compliance before today's hearing. So I'm just asking for a declaration of violation, please.

All right. Well,

move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and order a 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? Motion carries.

Thank you

for all that good work.

Now on to 4.4 on our agenda, case ninety two-twenty five. Find respondents Catherine Mazzelli, Patricia Croft, and Philip Lamont at 30 Island Drive in violation of code for address numbers and issue an order with compliance deadline. Find compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? No. Inspector Kasman, you have the floor.

Alright. Good afternoon, board. Daniel Kasman, code enforcement inspector for the city of Clearwater. This is case number 92Dash25 for 30 Island Drive. There are two violations here for code section three dash 15 o two d one for roof maintenance and code section 28 Dot82Dot1 for address needed. These are the dates of notice violation was sent out with the compliance date. They have to post the property. I have not heard anything from the owners.

They have

not tried to get contact with me on this property. So this was back in May. Notice there was a tarp on the roof of the property. Didn't know that didn't see the address posted anywhere. Tried calling the numbers and utilities. Tried sending letters. Nobody's getting back to me on it. There's no permits open in our system right now for any sort of repairs. This July 22, the same issue at the property. The address is on the other side, just trying to show that as well.

This was the date of the posting on the July 25. And then after that compliance date, they still haven't taken off the tarp. Again, still no action. And then this was this morning. The posting is still there along with the tarp, and they still haven't put the address on the property. So compliance met for the roof maintenance by removal of tarp from roof of home and repairing damage to the roof, and compliance met for the address numbers by displaying the address of the home and the building itself. I'm requesting compliance on it before 10/24/2025 or a fine of a $150 per day per violation for each day the violations continue to exist.

And no one no one's at the property or anything?

Never seen anybody there. The the utilities are still on. Yeah. The the bond looks up to date. Otherwise, I don't see it for sale, so I'm not sure what the issue is.

Mon looks like really nice. I mean, they're keeping everything. Somebody's keeping it, you know? Yeah. Bud, do you have any questions?

I do. I do. In my approximate three years here, I've never seen a violation for lack of address numbers, and I'm just curious about what brings that into play, because in my profession, I see a lot of places without address numbers, and I'm just curious as to what brings that into play as a violation.

It's one of our more minor codes. It may not be something I go specifically after a property for on its own. But if there's a greater violation, like in this case, there's a tarp on the roof, there's obviously damage from the storms. If I happen to see that there's no address on the property, I put it in as a violation as well because it's important to have the address of the home displayed on the home itself because if there was ever an emergency or the police fire had to get to the property, sometimes it's hard at night to see a small address on a mailbox or something painted on

the curb, which are both

not sufficient. It has to actually be displayed on the building itself.

Right. I'm a yeah. I'm understood, and I appreciate that. I'm I'm aware of the need and the reasons for it, but I was just curious as to why and when that comes into play. Thank you.

Just to add one thing, you can't close your permit without it.

Say again?

You can't close your permit if you have an active permit without your house. Interesting. As far as I know. Any more questions for Inspector Kasman? Can I get a First motion? First motion?

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

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion approved. I'm a second.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation to honor before 10/25/2025. 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 exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized for close, collectors settle such lien.

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Second motion carries.

Thank you.

All right. Next on our agenda is 4.5 case 90 Three-twenty5. Find respondents one Ariel Silva at 904 Vine Avenue in violation of code for residential rental business tax receipt and exterior services, and issue an order with compliance deadline defined if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? No? Inspector Dixon, you have the floor.

Deputy board, Inspector Gregory Dixon, co compliance inspector for the city of Clearwater. This is case 90Three-twenty5 for 904 Vine Avenue. There are two violations at this property, one for exterior surfaces and one for a lack of a residential rental business tax receipt. This violation went out in April, the compliance date in June. I did receive the green card back. Here's the house. There's just some rotten wood around the front of the house, some faded peeling paint. It's still in that condition today. I hadn't spoken to the owners, but the two gentlemen that were here was the owner and his son, and I explained what has to happen. They think they can have it done by my compliance date.

Here's a screenshot of our reporting system. There were two VTRs that were both out of business, so the lack of business tax received for the rental. Compliance will be met for the exterior surface by replacing any defective structural or decorative elements of any building or wall and ensure all exterior surface are free of mildew, rust, loose material, faded, peeling paint. Compliance will be met for the VTR by obtaining a residential rental business tax receipt for the property. For the two violations, I'm requesting compliance on November 1 for exterior surfaces, a fine of $150 per day, for the ETR, a fine of $50 per

day. Okay. Board, do you have any questions for Inspector Dixon? No questions? All right, can I get a first motion?

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

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? First motion carries.

Nicole, do we do the second as two since they're two different amounts? Okay. Yes. I move to and to enter an order requiring respondents to correct the violations on or before 11/01/2025, if the respondent does not comply with the date to order a fine of $150 per day for each violation. Each violation continues exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such claim is filed, the city is authorized to collect or settle such lien. Second.

All in

favor? Aye. All opposed? Second motion carries.

And then we'll do the 50. Yep. I move to end an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before 11/01/2025. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $50 per day per violation for each day. Each violation continue to exist and 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? Second motion carries. All right. Next case, 4.6 has been withdrawn. 4.7 is continued to 11/19/2025, 4.8 on our agenda case 96Dash25, fine respondents, Bomb Holdings LLC at 234 Palm Island Southwest in repeat violation for short term term rental and issue an order that a daily phone game goes for each state of repeat violation exist. Is anyone here to speak on that property? Would you come forward, please?

Hi. Can you state your name and and address for the record, please?

Yeah. My name is Nabot Ben David.

Suneet Ben David.

Your address? I'm sorry.

I need your names again. Didn't

hear you.

N a v o t, my first name. Navot, n a v o t. Ben Davied, b e n d a v I e

d. Thank you.

You. Do you guys admit or deny the violation?

Me We admit the violation. We

admit the violation.

But it was a mistake. We were out of the country, and the violation was fixed the next day when we came back. And we were not advertising for a month for a week.

Hold on. I'm I'm a

stop there. Let me explain.

Don't well, just hold on. All I need you to do right now is you've admitted to the violation. I'm gonna have you have a seat. We're gonna hear from the city, and we're gonna bring you back up after the city. Okay? That's yeah. Just go right over here and and have a seat in the front row, and and we'll bring you right back up. We're we'll hear from the city first. Thank you.

Mister Green, you have the floor?

Alright. Wait. Can I have a first motion, please?

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? First motion carries. Ms. Green, now you have

the floor. Alright. Good afternoon, board. Sarah Green, code compliance supervisor for the City of Clearwater. This is case number 96Dash25 for 234PalmIslandSouthwest. There's one violation here for an illegal short term rental. Notice violation was sent and posted on August 7, and the certified mail receipt was received back signed on August 18. This is a repeat violation, and we got a declaration of violation for a short term rental at the June code board. So I received a complaint from the neighbor when I checked their VRBO on August. It was set to a four night minimum.

As you can see there, when you click on the first, you could click the fifth as your checkout date. When you go into it, you can see here in the highlighted portion, it shows that it's I could rent it for four nights minimums. That would be against our short term rental for advertising for rent for less than thirty one days or one calendar month. The day after the posting went back, it was switched back to a thirty one night minimum. So for case 96Dash25, we're requesting a one time fine of $500 for the date observed on August 7.

Okay. Alright. You can come back to me.

So August 7, we've been out of state. We've been in Peru. My lady at the office, the house wasn't advertising for for four days. It was open only for thirty days. My employee got a text by verbal, the RVO, and asking if it's available for one week. She didn't know that we have a issue and it's not rent, and I can show you everything that we're not allowed to rent for for for four days or for a week. So she sent them text back, and she said, yes, we can do it. And she changed the list. I came back on Monday, and I have the flight ticket. We've been in a flight and everything.

I came back on Monday, and I answered this guy, and I said, listen, this is a mistake. The property, it's only for one month, and I'm sorry, and we can't like, we even didn't go all the way through the reservation. So I don't know what and at the same day, she, like, after that, sent me an email that it's open for violation. I said, what the house is not published for a short rental, it's only for one month. Not only that, I can show you that I have booked the house is booked only for one month. All the inquiries, it's only for one month. This nice, lovely neighbor just came looking for me. And obviously, it's look like that he's sending the image that I didn't know, and I'm just realizing that now.

So And we can show you the the fact that we were out of the country and that the replies, the minute we noticed the mistake was done.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's that's

Can I bring it on?

You can set it right down there onto the thing so you can see it on the

Of course.

On the screen.

Oh, I can see it. Yeah.

They'll bring it up. It on. Turn it on.

You can see the text that they sent in August 7 that it's asking actually if you can rent it only for one week because he wasn't able to book. It was open only for one month. And she said, so is this house available for monthly rental in December? I'm looking for a weekly stay. And she answered, yes, You can rent it it weekly. I'm just updating my resignation right now. It will be available in a minute. She changed it from monthly to daily or whatever. I came back in August 8 and I replied to him and I say it was a mistake. As you can see here, we've been on a flight on October 7 from Peru.

The So

it showed that we don't really, you know, rent it per weekly. It's only monthly, and it was a one time mistake.

Yeah. So yes, it was advertising, but she changed it, and I take full responsibility because obviously this is my employee and it was her mistake. But I'm not renting the house for short term. All my booking is for and I honestly, maybe it's once or twice was rented most of the time. It's me and my kids and my family from Israel is there. So this is all the booking for one month and stuff like that. If you want to see, we're welcome to see all the inquiries.

If this is a repeat violation, how did what happened last time that this is happening again? Why is it

happening again? This is not So our main the employees was handling that. We really didn't think it's an issue. So we didn't pay attention for that. When she emailed me, said, okay, we went to the office. Have a We

took it out.

And we took it out. And when I realized, okay, there is something wrong. Nobody touching the listing anymore. And it's only me. So from now on, I'm responsible for everything that happened here Since then, you can, nothing happened, and it's all on the inquiries even for one month. And I'm really picky with who I'm putting in my house if I'm putting something, someone in my house because obviously we want to move there eventually in one year, one or two years I would waiting that my son gonna finish high school. So it's not that we bought this out for rental property or make money because we're not making money from the house.

We're using it as occasion as much as we can.

Board, do you have any other questions for I have questions for Ms. Green. Board, do have any other

questions for me? When was the original violation?

Oh, you've gone to an

end there.

Six months ago? Eight.

We got the declaration of violation in June, so it would have been months before that.

Not not this repeat, but I'm talking about the original

Yeah. The original violation was found a declaration of violation in June.

June '25?

Yeah.

This is the second one. Right, right.

Well, it was so close in, that's what I was trying to figure out.

Can you, how long was the add up?

I checked on it August 7. We posted the property, and it was back to a monthly the next day.

Okay. So it was

up there. The add was up for a day.

So, I mean, I don't know how long was it before then, obviously, but I got a complaint, and I checked it that day.

Okay. And what was it so it wasn't actually rented as a result of this ad. It was just that the ad was up, and it's not allowed?

Yeah. Our the three dash nine one nine talks about renting and advertising for rent, so the ability to

rent So we never

know if they're rented.

Gotcha.

They changed it to the the her her employee changed it so that guy could so

they could rent it for

the week. She changed the advertisement, and then they came back the next day and realized that you can't do that. And they got back with them and heard text messages that said that, Hey, we can't do a week. And so it never was actually, no one ever stayed there for that. It was just to advertise.

But the advertisement's what the case is, it's not about staying.

Yeah, no, yeah. It's about the advertisement.

So I have another question. On the original violation prior to this, was there any fine assessed? What was it?

No, there would have been no fines since the declaration of violation, so they came into compliance before code word.

Okay, I got you. Yeah, before it got to

the second part, they came in. Well, board,

does anybody else have any

questions for Ms. Greene or anything? Does anybody have any recommendations on this, as far as, you know, I think $500 is kind of steep for I an would agree.

I mean, if they had been in violation and done it themselves and when they knew, I mean, that would be egregious in my opinion. Yes. Okay. The fact that they were out of the country is circumstance. The fact that somebody other than them did it is a circumstance. The question is, how does that, how should that, or should it, question is should it and how should it, affect the fine, if at all? That would be my question that I'd have to resolve in my mind.

Do you have a lower amount in mind?

150? 50? I don't know. I'm open to anybody's thoughts and input on it.

I I just think that $500 is pretty steep for, you know, less than twenty four hour. It was pretty much done, changed right back, you know, at no fault of their own is what they testified to, you know. So if they did know, they purged themselves. Mr. Chairman, I don't see really any true intent and they acted in good faith

to say.

I do too. Just, even though it's the second time, I would think we could just not zero violation and that it shouldn't ever come back again for every since. And I have a question for the homeowners. What happened in June? I know it was only in June, and there wasn't a fine, but what happened that time?

What happened. We didn't put a lot of attention for it to you. In June, when we decided to set up that for rent because it wasn't for rent from the beginning, we didn't this is the only house that that in VRBO, in Airbnb, all our property, in our main business, it's not rental, not short term or long term rental. So honestly, it was we didn't know. We just put it there without knowledge, with minimum what allowed, what not allowed.

And after the first thing, and obviously it was so like after from June to August, it's two months, but it wasn't open for short term. In a minute that we know it's a big deal and it's a issue with the city Right. We just took it off. Okay. Honestly, we we don't have all the time and all the to handle with with that.

It's Thank you. It's tough. Yeah, the first time they got it right off, you know. So I would just say that, you know, I would agree with Mr. Plum. I wouldn't, I would just waive any fine. I mean, that's my opinion on it. Mr. Chairman, I have

a question for Mr. Green. Has the city incurred any expenses after this? Good question.

Rebecca Mulder, Code Compliance Manager. Any time that an officer has to spend time to post a property, make contact, that's city resources from that employee making that effort. So yes, there was expenses, in the sense that an employee had to, spend time to investigate and resolve a complaint that came in to us and then investigate that post the property, those items. So from that standpoint, yes.

Thank you. Do we have a how do we figure a cost on that or do we have a number out of the air?

Mr. Chair, normally we would calculate that in a lean reduction. Normally we would do that in a lean reduction. We would calculate the time and we would provide it to you, but we have not done that. We don't have a standard flat fee for those administrative costs. I think they usually multiply it by the number of inspections and the cost of the mailings and all that stuff.

I'm wondering if the city would object to a fine of $25.

Why not a 100? Why 25? I'm

picking numbers out of the year.

If somebody has a better Violation did occur.

Okay.

I think that's really, just, you know, from my perspective, I think that the code does say that the advertisement, when we're talking about a residential zone, which we are, the advertisement in itself is what we normally prove as a violation. So it sounds like that did occur. It sounds like they took quick action. We don't really have any evidence to rebut what they say happened with the ad and everything. So I would accept all that as true, that they took action.

And then, you know, our fine amount really is we recommend, our theory is just in terms of deterrence, you know. We do think that this is a violation to advertise area in of the city and we just don't want it to keep reoccurring over and over again and the fine does have a deterrence impact there. But obviously it's the Board's discretion to determine what that should be and we would defer to you. I know last month we had a case where you found, of course the difference there being in that case the city did have a, the city made a mistake as part of that initiation of that case, which we conceded to that. I don't know that the city really did anything incorrect here, but in terms of whether or not the board feels that they took action swiftly and tried to comply and all that, we completely defer to the board in making that determination.

We wouldn't object to that.

Well, I've got 25 to one hundred and fifty and zero and zero, from zero to 150. So we need I think that it should be 500 for a mistake that they didn't have control over and they took care of it right immediately. But again, as a deterrent, you know, so I'm fine with, you know, a number we can come up, we can all agree on.

50? Does everyone, do you?

That's good. I think that's good, Mr. Farrar. You think that's fine? Yeah.

That's fine?

Okay, well let's go with that then. Can I make the motion? You make the motion.

Oh yeah.

You the money. You made made the motion. The You volunteered, Bob.

I move to enter an order requiring the respond to correct the violations, or is it, is this correct Repeat. Repeat. Okay. I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case has committed a repeat violation. I have a second?

Seconded. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? First motion.

It's a proper first motion, Navis.

Yeah, we haven't made the first We did make

the first motion, but not the proper one.

Okay. We're done.

Shall I continue?

Yep. Alright.

I move to enter an order that a fine of $50 per day be imposed for any days the repeat violation existed for a total fine of $50 payable within thirty days. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect or settle such lien. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 each day if the violation continues to exist.

I'm second. I'll second it. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Second motion carries. Thank you. All right, next on our agenda is eight point nine and four point one zero have been withdrawn. So we are on to all business items except the affidavits of compliance as listed for case, for agenda items five point one point one, five point one point two, five point one point three, five point one point four, five point one point five, five point one point six, five point one point seven. Can I have a

I move to accept the affidavits of compliance as listed?

Second. All in favor? Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. All right. Next is 5.2 on our agenda. Case 69Dash25, accept the affidavits of noncompliance for respondents, Regina and myself as as weirdo Martin at 809 Glen Oak Ave East for public health safety and welfare, nuisance of pool. Is there anybody here to speak on that? No. Inspector Maddox?

Good afternoon, Board. Kevin Maddox, Clearwater Code Inspectors. I went by today and verified that the pool is, in fact, green. Still green.

Still green.

I have pictures if you

want see them.

No, that's okay. I

move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance, an additional order that imposes fines and states that fines and fees are made unpaid three months after such lien is filed. The city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Alright. On to nuisance abatement lien filings, 7.1 on our agenda case one thirty three dash twenty five, except the nuisance abatement lien from the respondents Forrest Mauleman at 11 South Highland Avenue for lot clearing and issue an order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Suth, you have the floor.

Hi. Vicki Setup with the City

of Clearwater code compliance inspector. This is for case 133Dash25 for 11th South Island. There's one violation here for overgrowth. Code section three-fifteen oh three B7, three-fifteen oh three B8, three-fifteen oh three B10, and Three-fifteenO3B58. Notice of violation was posted and mailed on eighttwenty ninetwenty five with a compliance date of nineeighttwenty twenty five. The certified mail receipt was not we have not received it back. This is a picture on eighttwenty nine of the front yard. This is a picture of

the There's an address.

This was this morning or no, I'm sorry, this was on 916. I did go by there this morning, and it still just is overgrown. Compliance can be met for the lot by clearing all trash debris and overgrowth from the property. Requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order.

So there's been no contact with you on this room?

There was. It wasn't very good. I was out in the street and he was throwing cans at me and told me to get back to his house.

Was very pleasant. Typical day in the inspector.

Very pleasant.

The code inspector's life. Okay. Board, do you have any questions?

Did you throw them back?

Good inspector. Can I get a I move to enter order, find the respondent in violation of code and require the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order? If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property, to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable cost which will become a lien on the property. If the cost, fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect

or settle such lien. Second. All in favor?

Aye. All opposed? Motion approved. Okay, 7.2 on our agenda, case one hundred thirty four-twenty five, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents, Catherine Bolan at 204 South Corona Avenue for lot clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Souness, you have the floor.

Vicki Souness, City of Clearwater Code Compliance Inspector. This is for case 130Four-twenty5 at 204 South Corona Avenue. There was one violation here for code section three dash one five zero three B seven for overgrowth, three Dash1503 B 83 dash 1503B10, and three dash one five zero three B five. Notice of violation was posted and mailed on eighttwenty ninetwenty twenty five with a compliance date of nineeighttwenty twenty five. Certified mail has been unclaimed.

This is a picture of the front of her house on eighttwenty nine with the postings. And then again on 09/16, nothing still has been done. I went there this morning and still it's the same exact way. Compliance can be met for the lot clearing by clearing all trash debris and overgrowth from the property. Requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order.

Any questions? Move

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

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right, next up is 7.3 on our agenda, case 130Five-twenty5, except nuisance abatement lien from respondents Kathy Lambert at 2063 Plateau Road for lock clearing and additional order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation of compliance is not met. Inspector Dixon, you have the floor.

Good evening, board. This is case 135Dash25 for 2063 Plateau Road. There's one violation at the property for a lot clearing. Property is posted at the beginning of the month. It can probably stay in ten days. This is the property on the day of posting. Here's the property today. Compliance will be met by clearing all overgrowth

on the

property and edging the curb line and requesting compliance in five days.

Any questions? Board? I

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

Second. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right. 7.4 has been withdrawn. 7.5 on our agenda case number 137Dash25, except the abatement lien for respondent Stephen Witten at 1938 Byron Drive for lot clearing and issue an order with the compliance deadline to authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Casper, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, Daniel Gasby, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is case number 137Dash25 for nineteen thirty eight Byron Drive for nuisance abatement. And one violation here for Code Section three dash fifteen oh three b seven and b eight for lot clearing. Here's a date to notice the violation was sent out along with the compliance date. Here's the posting from the third. This is the property up front. Came as a complaint from a neighbor. And in the rear, he owns a small strip of land leading up to a lake, and it's getting very overgrown. Also, was a little bit of overgrowth on the curb line. Went back on the fifteenth.

The front was the same. The rear was the same. Curb hasn't been taken care of. And then today, my back still hasn't been mowed. Curb line's still not mowed, and the rear is just as lush. Applying for the lock clearing by mowing the lawn and edging the curb, and requesting compliance on or before five days from the date the Board records its order.

You can definitely see the property line on both sides. There's no doubt about that. All right, Board, do we have any questions for Inspector Kasman? No.

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

lien. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries.

Alright. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Next is 7.6 on our agenda, case number 138Dash25, accept the nuisance abatement leading from respondents Harris McCulloch at 1528 Excalibur Drive and opt for inoperative vehicle initial order with compliance deadline and authorized city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Maddox, you have the floor.

Kevin Maddox, Clearwater Code Compliance Inspector. This is for fifteen twenty eight Excalibur. It's inoperable vehicles, Case number 130Eight-twenty5. One violation, 15O3B6 for inoperable vehicles. Notice violation was posted and mailed on the August 29 with compliance date of the September 16.

The green card from the United States Post Office was not signed. Here you can see the front of the house with the posting. These are the three vehicles. All three of them do not have valid plates. The one that's covered doesn't have a plate at all.

This one is expired on the twentieth and the twenty second, and then this one has no plate at all. This on the September 16, everything remained the same. And then on the twenty fourth today, one vehicle was removed, but I do not expect that it was taken care of yet, but the red car is still expired and still no plate on the covered vehicle. Compliance can be met for the inoperable vehicles by ensuring all the vehicles are roadworthy, have inflated tires, and display a current registration sticker on the license plate assigned to the vehicle. We're requesting compliance five days after the Board renders its order.

Board, do we have any questions from Inspector Mattis?

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

Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right, 7.7 on our agenda has been withdrawn and 7.8 is case number 140Dash25, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Jackie Couples and Elena Butterworth at 2440 Chancellor Street in Op for inoperative vehicle initial order with compliance deadline. Authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance has not met. Mr. Mattox, you have the floor.

Kevin Maddox, code compliance inspector for the city of Clearwater. Case number 140Dash25 for 2440 Chaucer Street. This is for an inoperable vehicle, one single vehicle under 15 o three b one violation. Posted compliance dates listed. Green card was not received.

Here, the you can see there's no plate on the vehicle. The posting was on the back window. This was a close-up. This is from afar on the September 18. And again, this was on the September 18 using a different phone because I couldn't get the telescopic to work.

Today, I went by and took pictures yet again, and there was still no plate. Compliance can be met for the inoperable vehicle by ensuring all vehicles are roadworthy, have inflated tires, and display a current registration sticker on a license plate assigned to the vehicle. Requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order.

Board, do we have any questions?

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

Do have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Alright, motion carries. And if there is nothing else, Board, we will be adjourned. Thank you.