Municipal Code Enforcement Board - Regular Meeting

The pledge allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which stands one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice justice for for all. All. God be seated. The agenda of today's meeting are on the wall of the interest of the chambers.

Please turn off your cell phones. The municipal enforcement board gets us to seven members who are appointed by the city council and 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 indispensable method of enforcing certain codes within the city. The board considers new business items in two part, first a 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, silver manner, and their girls 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 the clerk.

If you wish to speak on a case. Are you guys speaking on a case?

Their item is anticipated to be continued, but they were here nonetheless. We're working on resolution.

Got it. Thank you, sorry. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth throughout your entire testimony?

I do. 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?

I move to approve the month's minutes.

Second. Second.

Minutes are approved. We

need to have the

vote. Oh, all in favor? Aye. Messrs are approved. Go to page three.

Is there anyone here to speak to this case?

That's after you call the first case.

Okay. That's why I'm missing that. Okay. All right. The first case is on the agenda 3.3, continued from November 19, case 14725. The respondents, Clemente Terron Petra May, and Santiago, Terron at 2371 Chaucer Street in violation of code for a steroid storage and issue an order with a compliance deadline and find if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak to this case?

Okay.

Bear with me a second.

I don't see my power point up here. Do you see it here?

No, No.

Inspector, you have the floor.

Good afternoon. Kevin Maddox, code enforcement inspector for City of Clearwater. This case is 147Dash25For2371ChaucerStreet. We met at the last MCEB board meeting, and the gentleman had a language issue, which

Kevin, he's

here. He's here? Yes. Okay.

So, was a continuation from the last meeting.

Real quick, do you want him to come up and introduce himself? And Board, I've got City Clerk Resmarie Call here to provide interpretation for the respondent. Okay.

And we need to swear a

minute.

Oh, yes. I'm sorry. If you could raise your hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth throughout your entire testimony?

Yes. Okay.

Is that a do you want Okay. Alright. Thank you.

You're welcome.

And your name? My

name is Clemente Desa Teran, t e z h a.

Got it. Thank you.

Mister Demanti,

do you

admit or deny the violation? Okay. Would you have a seat, and we'll call you right back Okay. Up soon. Okay? Inspector?

This case is for one violation of code section three dash 15 o two g one exterior storage. Notice of violation was sent on July 10. Compliance date on August 11 with certified mail was received signed on July 22 year. This is the house. The front of the house, when I first noticed it, was developing a large amount of items on the outside of the house.

You could see through the lawn and to the back of the vehicles, it was starting to stack up. On August, eleventh, I had looked at it again, and at this point, the garage door is now open and stacked very high, and things were continually coming outside of the house and being worked on over the months. Over here, stacked on the left side of the house and in the garage area in the front. On the November 19, it has significantly improved, which was our last code board meeting, but there were still some items on the side of the house, items that were stacked in the front, and some items on the other side of the house that still needed

to be

removed. As of today, it's in that same condition where there's still the storage containers out in the front of the house. There's some minor things up by the garage on this side. Let's see if I can back up. The pipes were on the other side as well that still need to be removed.

Compliance can be met by clearing all any discarded or unused materials, interior furnishings, appliances, automobile supplies, equipments, construction materials, junk, garbage containers from the exterior of the property, and maintain it on a regular basis. Requesting compliance on or before 01/14/2026, for case 140Seven-twenty5.

And the fine?

50.

I'm sorry.

Yes, sir. Okay. Or a fine of $150 per day per violation for each state of violation exists. Thank you very much.

Any questions for the inspector?

Yes. Have you been in communication with the owner,

mister Troy?

I've attempted to stop by several different times. I did see one woman, and there was always a language barrier, and she indicated that it's getting cleaned. But over the months, it significantly got better in this last month or so, but it just needs a little bit more.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Clemente?

Wait. What's not on the sheet? Okay.

Oh, okay.

So he has a video of what he said around

the property. Alright. Hang on just a moment. I need to have a motion made first for the violation. Do I have a motion?

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

All in favor. In favor. Aye. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Clemente, go right ahead.

He says that he cleans up all around the property.

I put a new fence too.

So New fence.

I put a new fence out on the house.

Okay. Is this a repeat or is this

I think so.

Yes. Think that's making twice. It's

a loop.

It's a loop.

Does the board have any questions?

That's of today, taken out today. Yes.

I have a question for the inspector.

Yes. Do too. Mister

Maddox, inspector Maddox, when was the last time you saw the property?

I inspected the property this morning about nine or 10:00. Okay. The video appears to not have an angle to see the pipes that are along the left side of the house. So I could not tell if that got removed between that time and just now. Right. It seems to appear, but I can't quite see the stacked boxes up by the front door and some miscellaneous things by the garage door. They're not significant. It's just that if the boxes and the pipes were removed on the, left side of the house facing forward, that would be, in my book, compliance.

I would tend to agree. I'll just offer the observation that the video, I mean, it's good that there's a video, but I was not able to see the level of detail. Yeah. And it would, based on our experience on the board, would seem prudent to have the owner get with you and satisfy your concerns.

Yes, and he the same cat was right there by the truck, I could see that, so it had to have been within the same hour.

It's the next the house, cat. Home

Just making an observation. Yes, sir. It's all very within the same period of time.

Okay. Thank you. So Mr. Comete, do you have anything else you would like to add? No. Okay. All right, board, do I have any other questions?

Well, you removed the pipes or not?

Yes. He says yes. You know,

it would seem, if I can offer, it seems to me that per our typical procedure, you know, we've already found him in violation. If we make the mortar, they go with the inspector's request to have compliance before January 14. Now that he's here with an interpreter and the inspector's here, they ought to easily be able to coordinate that and deal with that. So it would seem to me, you know, if we offer our standard motion, then we're done.

Mr. Clemente, just stay in touch with the inspector.

Do we need to read the second motion so that if Yes. He doesn't So we do this Yeah.

Okay. I'll do it. Okay.

Okay. Go ahead.

I moved to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before 01/14/2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of a $150 per day. Per violation for each day. Each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

Motion carried. Thank you, Mr. Clemente. Good. Next case is on the docket is case number 167Dash25 respondents John Lemham at 1659 Longstreet in violation for code for steer services and roof maintenance in this order with the compliance deadline and find if compliance is not met. Daniel Kasman, inspector, go right ahead, Daniel.

I'm happy to inform you all. He did come to compliance, so I'm just requesting a declaration of violation for this case, both issues.

Do I have a motion for declaration?

Is this, the typical or is this a

Complied prior. I'm sorry? Complied prior.

Okay.

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 the today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist.

Second.

May I have a motion on the declaration? Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carried.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Daniel. Next case on the docket is case number 168Dash25 respondents stream street dreams trust by Cheryl Trueblood Trey at 1400 North Martin Luther King Drive in violation of code for austere, surfaces, and abandoned building. And it's in order with the compliance deadline if compliance is not met. Greg? Anyone here to speak on this issue? No. Absolutely not. Go right ahead, inspector.

Alright. Good afternoon, board. Inspector Dixon, City of Clearwater. This is for 1400 North Martin Luther King Junior Avenue, case 168Dash25. There's two violations of code section three dash 15 o two b for exterior surfaces and code section three dash 15 o three a b one, two, three, and nine for abandoned building.

This case started at the July. There was the mail was returned back, so I had to post the property in August. It's a commercial building along MLK. It's got some rotted wood. Just needs some attention. The grass wasn't being cut. There was some broke down cars on the property. This is a copy of the utilities. There hasn't been water at the place since 2017. That's about the same time the last business tax receipt was active there.

Here is the property on day of posting. The grass is cut and the vehicles were removed, but the building's in the same condition. I haven't spoke with the owner. Here's a posting of the notice of hearing for today, and here's the property this morning still in the same condition.

Inspector, he has contacted you and

all? No.

Okay.

The mail goes to this building. Okay. They're not getting it. So if they're not going by it, they're not getting my postings or anything.

Okay. Do you have any contact information for the owner?

No. Okay.

Compliance will be met for the exterior services by replacing any defective structural or decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior services are free of dew, rust, loose material, and fade appealing paint. Compliance can be met for the abandoned building by correcting all code violations. Visit the property regularly to ensure the grounds are kept neat and no other violations occur on the property. I would like to request compliance on or before 01/14/2026 or a fine of a $150 per day per violation if compliance is not met.

Okay. Are there any questions for the inspector? Bob, any questions? Nope. Okay. May I have a motion on the violation?

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

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Motion carried.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before 01/14/2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of a $150 per day per violation for each day, each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All

in favor? Aye. Motion carried. Next case is, continued January, Case number 170.25, final respondents JEMB Pondeco LLC at 100 Carnero Drive in violation of code for prohibited signage and it's an order with the compliance deadline if compliance is not met. Mr. Burkhart.

Good afternoon board. Stephen Burkhart, sign inspector for City of Clearwater. All five cases today presented by me are declarations of violations. That means that case and following cases, they are in compliance as of today. I'm just asking the board for declaration of violation. Okay.

May I have a motion on the 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 an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist.

All in favor? Second.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Okay.

All right. Second.

All in favor?

All in favor. All All right. Motion carried. Okay. You're on the next one too. Okay. Case number 171.25, final respondents, DC, Colorado Beach, One Property LLC at 309 Coronado Drive in violation of code for prohibited signage and issue an order with the compliance deadline if compliance is not met.

Inspector? Alright. Steven Burkhart, sign inspector. I'm asking for declaration violation for this case.

May I have a motion on the 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 date to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist.

All in favor?

Second. Yes.

All in favor? Aye. Motion carried. I keep forgetting about that part. You. Keep straight. I needed to. Case is 173.25. Respondent Palmer Charles e junior.

310.

I miss it? 310.

310.

Went right above it.

Right above.

I'm reading to it. 310.

Read 311.

310172.25.

Oh

yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, I'll that one. Okay, case number 172.25, final respondents to Beach Eats Enterprises LLC at three ninety five Mandalay Avenue in violation of code for prohibited signage in issuing order with a compliance deadline and fine if the compliance is not met. Anyone here to speak on that case? Okay. Inspector, you have the floor.

Alright. Steven Burkhardt. The case is in compliance as of today, and I'm asking for declaration of violation, please.

May I have a motion on the 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 an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist.

May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carried. Next case, Bob, make sure I'm on the right case. Think the 312311. Case number 173.25. The respondents Palmer, Charles E. Junior, Trey Palmer, Charles E.

Junior, Rev Trust, Joseph Pallara, Vivian Pallara, Peter Pallara, and Melissa Arnett at 431 Mendeleev Avenue in violation of prohibited signage and issuing order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Anyone here to speak on that case? Obviously not. Mister Burkhart, you have the floor.

Stephen Burkhart, the case, 173Dash25, was in violation and as of today is in compliance. So asking I'm the board for declaration of violation.

And may I have a motion on the 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 an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day if the violation continues to exist.

Second? Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Motion carried. Next case will be case number 174.25 respondents Pelican Walk Plaza LLC at 483 Mandalay Avenue in violation of code for prohibited signage and issuing order with a compliance deadline and filing if the compliance is not met. Mr. Burkoff, again, you have the floor.

Steven Burkhart. Sure. Case 174Dash25 is in compliance as of today, so I'm asking the board for declaration of violation.

And may I have a motion on the declaration?

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

Any seconds? Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Burkhart. Next case has continued to January. Okay. And we're going down to, wow, that's continued. Case number 181.25.

No, 3.16. Oh, My mistake.

Yes, continue. Yeah, I see what you're Yeah, we're skipping way down to 181.25.

You're right.

Final respondents, Andrew Smucker at 2901. Brigadine, there he is. And you're just in time to read this. We're on 3.19. Oh, you want me

to read it for you?

For you? It's okay. So you can catch up?

Okay. Why don't

we hurry Okay. 3.19. Alright.

Next case up on the docket is 3.19, case number 18125. Firing respondents, Andrew Smoker at 2901 Brigadoon Drive in violation of code for exterior surfaces and clean roof, initiate an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this? We come forward, sir.

Your mail.

Good

don't sitting

afternoon Mr. Smoker. Do you admit or deny the violation? Admit. Admit it? Okay. Will you have a seat right there? Can I have a first motion please?

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

Aye. All opposed?

Good afternoon, board. Jared Daniel Senior, code inspector. This is about address 2901 Brigadoon Drive. There's one violation for code section three dash one five zero two dot b for exterior surfaces. The notice of violation was sent out on 04/1525 with a compliance date of 05/2125 and the certified mail was received signed on 04/2925.

This is on the day of the first initial inspection, just the top mold and mildew, whatever. This was after the compliance date. Saying still in the same state. And this was this morning, still in the same state, I think. Compliance can be met for exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structure and decorative elements of any building walls and ensure all external surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose materials, and fading slash peel and paint.

Requesting compliance on or before 02/01/2026 or a fine of $1,150 per day per violation if compliance is not met.

Board, do we have any questions, Prince Becker?

Yes. Have you been in conversation with the owner?

I saw the spoke with him on-site before, and he ensured me that he was working on it. Mhmm. It was some more things to the unit that were fixed, but this was just the only thing that's that's left to be

done. Okay. What else did you see there that has been fixed?

That has been fixed?

Yeah.

Oh, they painted he pressure washed the whole unit. It was more mold and mildew on the rest of the unit that he did clear up. Mhmm. And he ensured me that it was he couldn't reach it with the pressure washer, so he was supposed to be getting, going further to try to get up there and get that all cleaned up.

Gotcha, okay, thank you.

Good morning, any other questions? Mr. Smoker? So how's the progress going on this property?

I'm making progress. Originally there was also like debris on the roof. I had the HOA trim more of the tree line because mine is an end unit and it has a ton of tree branches that get old, whatever dried out and they fall on the roof, they fall on the front of me when I come out of my home, is unsafe for me. But they did do that, they did finish that. There was also damage to my posts, which I conquered, is that the right word, conquered and I also had a handyman come over and do some siding on the back between the two AC units and painted the closest paint that we could.

I've had pressure washer on the side of that mildew that you just saw. It removed most of it, but unfortunately due to the Florida heat and whatever or not, it has grown back. I've been also pressure washing it quite often. I tried to get on the roof myself, but unfortunately my ladders aren't big enough, I don't have any family or associates that I can get larger ladders to, but I will remedy that with either a professional company or buy just a new ladder myself, because the companies that I have asked to help me, they won't even speak with me without getting money upfront first which I think is a little bit ridiculous. But I have every intention of fixing it by whatever date it costs.

Even though it's in the back and it's not being seen by anyone, it's still part of my responsibility, it's part of my home, I want my home to be a good reflection of

the community. Very good, sounds like you're taking care of a lot of stuff.

I'm

trying. February 1 is gonna be plenty of time for you to get the rest of everything Yes. In Board, do you have any questions for Mr.

Small, No. Do you have

All right. Can I have a second motion? Thank you, sir.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before 02/01/2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city's authorized foreclosed collector settle such lien. Second. All in favor? Aye.

All opposed? Alright. Motion carries. Next case is 3.21 on our agenda case number 183Dash25. Five new respondents, Elizabeth Anderson at 200 Leeward Islands in violation of code for unsafe building and work and issue an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this? Lee? Yes. Yes. Have you been sworn in, ma'am? No.

No. Good. No. Good.

We'll get you sworn in real quick, and then we'll get to it.

If you'll just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirms to tell the truth throughout your entire testimony? I will. Thank you.

Miss Anderson, will you come up to the podium, please? Will you state your I gotta ask I got a couple questions to ask Elizabeth Anderson. Can you state your name and address for our clerk?

Okay. It's Elizabeth Anderson. 200 Leeward Island.

Miss Anderson, do you admit or deny the violation today?

Admit to the violation.

Do you

admit to it? Okay. If you wanna have a seat right there, we'll we'll have the city present their case, and then I'll get right back to you.

Sit where?

You move that rope for her so she don't have to go all the way around?

Thank you.

Miss Anderson? Miss

Anderson? Anderson? You can just go right through there, You can just turn around and go right through there, so you don't have to walk all the way around.

We spent a lot of time together.

Inspector Larson, we have the floor.

Thank you. My name is James Larson, billing inspector. This is case number 183Dash25200LeewardIsland. Section we have one violation. Section three dash one five zero two, property maintenance requirements.

Minimum building code requirements. All buildings shall be maintained in accordance with Florida Building Code, Fire Prevention Code, International Maintenance Code. Section three dash one five zero three, nuisance nuisances. The existence of any of the following specific buildings which are abandoned, boarded up for a period of six months, partially destroyed, left in a period of three months, a state of partial construction, provided any unfinished building or structure which has been under construction six months or more shall be deemed and presumed to have been left for unreasonably long period of time. Notice of violation, 10/16/2024.

So it's over a year, twenty seven days after receiving notice as a compliance date. Certified mail was returned, signed on 10/25/2024, and the property was posted 10/16/2025. Notice of hearing posted, 10/1625 notice of hearing. Here you'll see here's the location. It's at 200 Leeward.

These are pictures of the structure. The building was on fire after the hurricane flooding.

Was the fire during the hurricane?

Mhmm. Yes,

sir. Oh, wow. Wow.

There's her car in the garage. And this is what it looked like yesterday. She did have it cleaned up real well, as you can see, but it's still in violation as it stands. For compliance to be met, have a licensed contractor obtain and complete required permitting to elevate the structure according to design flood elevation or for compliance to demo complete demolition of the structure. Obtain and complete the permit by 03/18/2026.

We're asking the board to authorize the city of Clearwater to enter onto the property to correct the violations by any means necessary and any reasonable cost to be applied as liens against the property. After three months from the recording date of such a lien, if the fines and fees remain unpaid, the city attorney's office is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien using any legal or equitable remedies under state law under the law. And that's pretty much where we stand.

Now when you when the the city says by any and all means, does that mean even the demolition of the property

That's

of the structure?

Yes,

sir. Okay. Well, how do you determine that, mister Vargas? Well,

the the the situations, because of the the flood and the the hurricane, the FEMA rules apply.

I know they have to be elevated. Yes, sir.

Yeah. So there's no fixing this one way or

the other?

It's my it's my opinion is that no, there's there's short of I mean, I've seen in the past where they will leave some of this up and then build on top of

it.

Yeah. But as as the way it stands now, it's not

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear Bob's

opinion Yeah, go ahead.

On my experience with the FEMA rules, if a property is damaged in excess of 50% of its actual value at the time of a storm And repair costs exceed that 50% value, then the entire structure has to be brought up to code, including elevating the structure if it's below the base, what they call the base flood elevation. And so based on what I see here and knowing the location of it, there's,

when you

have a slab residence, there's no Raising. Feasible way to lift that slab. It's it's not the economical route is that typically the property would get demolished and then a new structure built that is at an elevation that complies with the FEMA rules. What that means in our world is that the only feasible economical route on this thing is that it would get demolished

and comes down. You. Board, do you have any other questions for inspector?

Is there a recommended fine?

No, they're just right now. This isn't a nuisance, is it?

No, it'd be a lane.

Well, it's an unsafe building.

So what would be the daily?

Mr. Chair, mean, we have cited to the nuisance code provisions, but we have not brought it through the expedited nuisance abatement procedures. As you can see from the timeline, this is something that we've been extending multiple times trying to work with the property owner. And I'll just add that with regard to FEMA rules and that sort of thing, when someone applies for a permit to repair something that's been damaged by a storm, that the flood plain administrator for the city will make a determination on 50% rule, whether or not the repair would exceed that 50% rule as the board member was explaining.

And that comes at the time that they apply for the permit.

When they apply for

the permit. And so there could be a substantial damage determination or a substantial repair determination made through that permitting process. That decision is then appealable up to the community development board if the person disagrees with that decision. I'm not familiar with specific details for this. I don't know if the building department wants to chime in on that.

But, you know, they do have the building official, the floodplain administrator I should say, can make that determination of substantial damage. Essentially what we're asking for here is just the authorization to go and demolish it if it's not done within a certain time. The other thing I would add to that is that I'm not sure if the property owner can explain whether or not the property is homesteaded or not. The city cannot foreclose on a homesteaded property. So I did just make that clear.

We would never even attempt to do so. It's expressly prohibited for a lien in this type of situation. You know, for demolition, we would go through a procurement process. We would get quotes from demolition contractors and engage that if this was all authorized. And then the work would be done.

The liens that would go against the property, I know in talking with the clerk and other cases we have worked out payment plans and things over time. That's something that we would be open to. We understand the hardship of this situation. So I just want to make all that clear on the record before we move on.

Okay. Thank you, counsel. Thank you.

Miss Anderson, can you come back up,

please? Are

you okay? Do you need some water?

Take your time.

Take your time.

You tell me I take my time. I'm drop dead.

We're very sorry for your loss,

by Yes. Yes.

Yes. We

are. We all understand.

It's devastating.

I have a law suit, you know.

It's hard for you. Do you plan on on pulling permits to try to

get this? I would love to

have my house back. God, did you? I do not have to make Christmas cookies. No. I don't know. I'm planning, but I call. I I had one builder constructor, and I looked on on Zoom or whatever it is, and they said he was unreputable. So I have to be very careful.

Is your homeowner's insurance helping you?

My homeowner?

Insurance, are they helping you?

I had no insurance. My mother died and I took care of her and just a year before I stopped the insurance because they wanted 2,000 a month because of the water and the water pump. So I stopped the insurance. So

as of right now, you're you're basically the only thing that, you know

Is the lawyer in that high end of case because the car when I when during the hurricane, I opened the garage door and whole house blew up and the neighbor's mad because the pool was a mess. That was my fault. But he could should've been worried that house could've blown him up and his house too. Thank god it didn't blow anybody neighbor on either side, you know, as long as it was mine. That was the only luck I had.

Where are you living now, mister Anderson?

Last yesterday, I was going in a motel, but my dog knows how to press the electric button, and she doesn't want any dogs. And he's going in the motel ahead of me. She said, get out in Orange Blossom. She was Polish.

Yeah. I know that motel.

He knows how to pray. He knows how how to pray. But sometimes I stay in the car. Sometimes I I used to go a Femur Fairfield Hotel. It was lovely, but, you know, it was only for duration.

Yeah.

Miss Anderson, do you have any any plans in place or any idea how you're gonna deal with the property or what you're gonna do?

Well, I I had Kevin a a a demolisher because the city wanted 25,000 to demolish it. He said he could do it for 6 and the pool. So I I'm calling a lot of people. I I didn't know anything. For six months, Hyundai said they were gonna give me money at because of the car was on a safety recall. And I took it to Fitzgerald, and they told me it was fun, that I could take it, put it anywhere in the car, anywhere. And the fire inspector said the brakes, they didn't replace the brakes, ejected, and that's why it blew up.

Do you own the property?

My mother gave me

too. Good.

Oh, that's good.

Well, in the end, in the end, it will be.

Yeah. I mean Well That's

it's just part of life, Ms. Anderson. We understand.

It's going to be okay.

Everything's going I'm sorry. It

is. So

you're in the process of talking with demolition, trying

to find a demolition And sometimes I ask contractors because a lot of contractors said they could fix the because my neighbor said there's four walls, you can do something. But the city, you know, they say this, now they gotta have a pillar, and they have cast iron pipes and I can't, you know how it's all.

Yeah. Yeah.

They've really tightened their grip down there on the islands, you know, because of, you know, because of

I've been there fifty seven years

now.

It was different codes now.

Yeah. So, you know.

Do you think that

you're they've got a March 18 deadline on this. I mean, do you think that you by March 18, you're gonna possibly be able

Oh, to get

Paul, don't call anymore. He's a

You know?

A keep

calling. Keep you know, you can get somebody out there and maybe, you know, look at it, you you know, make a decision one way or there. Because what we're gonna do today is just go ahead with, go ahead with our procedure and you have until, you'll have until March or sixth, eighteenth.

So I can cry all through Christmas in the burbed out house. You can all come for a Christmas party.

We can You can have Christmas in my house if you want to. But we're just gonna we're gonna go ahead and go through our order, and then you'll you'll have until March It's the okay. It's it's it's okay. It's you know, stuff happens to the best of us, and you had no you had no control over this.

Yeah. But I did have control in the beginning. I thought this last night I should have sold that right away, but I I, you know, I think my mother died and being here for so long.

I understand. Well, you can still sell the property after after it's comes back into compliance. Yeah. That's why I say in the end, you own in it. It's gonna help you.

It's gonna help you really I

I know What can I do, Bill? If high end doesn't give me any money, I'll live in there in a tent?

Land. That's not funny.

The land's worth a bit down there on the island. Just that land with no building, just a flat piece of dirt is worth a lot of money.

That's going to be in your And that's

going to be in your favor.

If I make it,

but I'll make

it completely.

Going to

be fine. You're going to come out of this and you're going to be just fine.

I'm sorry.

No, that's okay. It's alright. So, yeah, like I said, we're gonna go ahead and go through our orders and then, you know, you'll have until March 18. You know, keep calling some people, maybe get some group builders out there and see, you know, just get some ideas, you know, before you make the the decision to sell. Okay?

I just got new glasses, so I don't I feel like a drunk, you know. I can see is also good.

I'm actually uglier than I really look, so your new glasses are probably

healthy. Okay.

All right. Well, you, Ms. Anderson.

We know you're overwhelmed. Yeah. But don't let it consume you. Okay.

All right. Happy holidays, guys.

You too, miss Anderson. Can I get a I got a first motion on this? Right? We did hear I first think we do.

I don't

think so.

No. We didn't get

a Yeah.

There is a first

motion on this. Is this a nuisance abatement?

No. It's not

a nuisance. It's not yet.

It's not unsafe building because that's what the

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

I'll second.

All in favor?

Aye. All opposed? First motion carries. Can I get a second motion? I

move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before 03/18/2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of, is it 150?

We're not asking for this Is this the

right motion?

Think you're saying that

shouldn't be using the ownership building. Motion. Oh,

right. So would the abatement motion be appropriate?

Yeah. I didn't ask for the abatement. Is that what

We you

asked for, I mean, it's the same, remedy that we are requesting where the city's requesting if the, deadline is not met, that the city be authorized to enter, the property and correct the violation. All right,

so that would be under the unsafe Unsafe buildings. But in that language is the word foreclosed, and we've rendered an

opinion Or you can't afford I mean, you could say it, but it doesn't matter because they can't. So you could put the I mean, if it suddenly isn't homesteaded, then they could.

Alright. So we just read the order as

Yeah.

So it right.

And that would be the

It's just a question of what the city's able to do.

And skip the fine. That

would be the

Just let it play out.

Right. We're not seeking any kind of fine. We're just

we're Okay.

Like I said, we would if the deadline was not met, then we would discuss as a city staff what the next step would be, and we would, you know, hire a contractor through our procurement, and we go demolish the building pursuant to the court's authorization. With regard to the homestead issue, we would never foreclose on the homestead property, but as the attorney said, if the property changed ownership and lost its homestead status, then we would at that time, that could be a potential means to collect whatever expenses the city incurred.

Okay. I thought this was a nuisance abatement.

Well, won't even read that part.

I'll just skip it.

No, it wasn't a nuisance abatement. Right. We're on an unsafe building. Unsafe building.

All

right. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before 03/18/2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the city may take all reasonable actions, actions including entry onto the property to bring the property into compliance and charge the respondent with all costs, which will become a lien on the property. If cost, fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city's authorized to foreclose, collect or settle such lien. Second. All in favor?

Aye. All opposed? Second motion carries. All right.

Next, good luck, Ms. Anderson. You

too, dear.

Thank you. Ms. Anderson, are you available to stay till the end of the meeting?

Our next case is going to be 323Dash22 on our agenda case 184Dash25 find respondents William R. Black at 2390 Wells Street Trail in violation of code for unsafe building and issue in order for compliance deadline to find if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case?

No?

Well, can go ahead with our first motion. Is there oh, okay. Hold on. Let's wait a second.

Is I'm sorry. Are we on 3.2230.22.

Yes.

Thank you. Item 3.22 will be continued to January.

About that. Case number 180Four-two25 will be continued until our January meeting. Okay, 3.23 on our agenda has been withdrawn. Case 3.24 on the agenda, case number 180Six-twenty5, find respondents level thirteen asset management LLC at 534 South Keystone Avenue in violation of code for permits and issued an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? No? Inspector Rees, you have the Good

afternoon, code board. I'm Inspector Catherine Reese, also known as Cat Reese. Might as well put that on record now. We're case number 18625. This is for one violations for permits required section four dash two zero three dot a dot one.

Specifically, this is for an installation of new posts on the deck and the railing replacement. First notice was sent 04/10/2025, and my final notice was sent 05/19/2025 with a compliance date on the original compliance date of 05/19/2025. I posted to the property on December for the hearing. This is just to give you a idea of where the location is. So it would be South of Crest Lake Park, just East of Lake Drive.

And this is a picture of the physical posting for the hearing. And this started as I started as on a housing case for this property. So I can testify that deck was not like that during my housing inspection. I've had no communication with the property owners ever. They just went about to try to fix I guess what they could but again, on my housing, it did state that they meet required permits for such work.

And that was my picture as of today. Compliance could be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit. Requesting compliance on or before 01/19/2026 to obtain an issued permit and six months from issue issuance date to complete said firm permit. If the violation continues to exist and close a fine of a $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. That's it.

You had no communication at all?

None at all.

I've seen a car there. So someone living there? Yeah. You think?

It's tenants. I've I've talked to tenants on the property They never owned it. But never the property owners. Okay.

Kat, when was your compliance date?

The original was May 19.

So it's been a while.

Right.

No, not the original.

January 16.

January 16.

Oh, sixteenth. Yes. Picked the yeah. So January 16.

I'm I'm January since January 19.

Nineteenth. Yes. Open business day.

Got you. Thank you.

From a month from today, but

Oh, okay. Okay.

Not counting the weekend.

Do you

have any questions for Inspector Yes.

So there's no permit of any record of any kind for the deck work that was built?

No, sir.

Okay. And no communication from the owner whatsoever? No. Did they sign for the certified mail? Do you know?

No. That is why I posted on the property. I also posted my notices on the property as well.

No communication whatsoever then. Okay. All right. Thank you. You looked on the property records to see where the owners are at? Are they around here or

It's an LLC.

Oh, so Yeah.

And I believe their address is in Ocala, if I'm not mistaken, just off memory writing so many notices. No other officers

ever lived here.

No. The known properties.

Yeah, Board, do you have any other questions for inspector? No? Can I have a first motion?

Mr. Chairman, 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? First motion carries. Can I get a second?

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before 01/19/2026. If the respondent does not comply by the date, the board vote order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such a lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such a lien.

Second. All in favor?

Aye. All opposed? Second motion carries. Alright, next case on our agenda is 3.25 case number 187Dash2500 respondents. Vicky Lynn Bishop at 1028 Iroquois Street in violation of code for permits and issued an order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? No? Inspector Reese, you have the floor.

Right. Inspector Cat Reese, this is reference to 1028 Iroquois Street, case number 187Dash25. And this also will be for one violation, section four dash two zero three dot a dot one for permits required. No person shall commence any construction, demolition, modification, or renovation of a building or structure without first obtaining a building permit. Specifically for the installation of the pool.

Yeah. This

is a old case that I have taken over from a previous inspector. So the beginning, their first notice of violation was sent 09/28/2020. Wow. With my final notice that was sent 06/03/2025. Their original compliance date was 10/13/2020.

And I did have to post to the the hearing for the notice of hearing on December 5. This is located on Iroquois Street which is just east of Fort Harrison. You know, and just south of Calumet Street, more common street. That is a picture of the property and my posting on December 5. This is a Google Earth image of said pool.

And there's a street view from 01/10/2019. And then another, I'm sorry, aerial view, 02/23/2025. I have contact with miss Bishop. However, given the time that, you know, how long this has been going on and reading through the notes from the previous inspector. Saying that you're gonna get something done, and it's been quite some time.

I did extend her twice. She does have a contractor who put in for the pool permit. However, he has not met the conditions on it, and I did make it clear to the contractor without the permit being issued prior to code board. I would still have to continue on with the case so that we can assure that we get an issued permit and have final inspections on this pool. So that's why we're here today.

These are the conditions that need to be met. So the contractor, the narrative that they put into the permit does not match what's what the permit technicians are seeing in, you know, for the permit. So, it's they need to fix that as well and then they'll be able to get an issued permit. So compliance can be met by obtaining and completing a permit or removing the pool. Request compliance on or before January 19 to obtain an issued permit and six months from issued date to complete said permit.

If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of a $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. And just to add, miss Bishop is aware that if the contractor didn't get this done, that I would be presenting it at court court. I'm surprised she's not here.

So this is five years.

It's a very

long It's small

To pull a permit?

Yes. That's unreal. That's unreasonable.

I mean,

that's like Well, it I'm curious as to why the gap, not for any particular reason but

for It's a great question. I really I can't speak on previous inspectors. I know for me going forward I want to stick to a reasonable timeline so we don't have very old cases like this coming before the board without a reasonable explanation as to why I assure you that won't happen on my area.

Nobody's holding you responsible for

when Right. I know. I just wish I had answers for you, but for that, but I don't.

When was the original permit?

When was the In 2020. I

don't think we've ever heard one that long.

Is it are you allowed to, like, permits go for five years?

Oh, no. So the permit has that was sorry. Let me go back for you so that way you could I know what you mean now.

That might have been just a violation. There was no Right.

So the permit itself was applied for on December 11.

Of this year?

Yes. So,

okay. Four

days ago.

So I'm confident even with us me presenting it here that the contract the contractor advised me, I'll have it done before cohort so you can get it withdrawn, but here we are. So I I just can't take people's word for it, especially when it comes to a permit and a pool, you know, we need to ensure final inspections because it was a stop work order.

But even so, the violation's been there five years.

Yes.

And there is no statute of limitations.

Mister chair, we, there is an attorney general's opinion that recognizes that there is no specific statute of limitations applicable to code ordinance, city ordinance violations. And then given the fact that it unpermitted construction is an ongoing thing. You're gonna see as Ms. Reese has taken over some cases that kind of got stale over staffing issues, suppose that you will see some of these as she's picking up the banner for them. We've looked at them, we've talked through it.

It's our position that the statute of limitations does not apply for these types of violations. Each and every day, you've heard that phrase, each and every day the violation exists is often treated as a new violation itself. So we are talking through some of this, trying to figure out the best way. With permits that have been applied and were not properly closed out or were expired and then properties are sold to bonafide purchasers with those issues. The building code statute lays out a process that allows the building department to close out some of those expired permits.

But that's only if, you know, there was kind of a permit in process from a previous owner and then you've got a arm's length fire who kind of bought into something that they didn't know they were getting. That's kind of a different situation from completely on permitted work altogether. Hope that answers some of your questions, but you, the board will likely see some more of these in the coming days and we're happy to talk through some of that with you.

And the city's not asking like retroactive back to whatever date that was. 2020. Whatever the violation. We be

able to do that. Now there is a sort of a statute of limitations in the code enforcement chapter with regard to repeat violations because there's a five year time limit to where you can apply a repeat status. But outside of that, we're not we would not be trying to backdate any of these things. We're just trying to clean up some of the records and move these

folks All right. No worries.

I have a question.

Yeah, go ahead, Mr.

Chairman. That looks like an above ground pool?

It is.

All right. I know for an in ground pool, and this is not necessarily part of our thing here, but is security fence that's typically required, is that any part of this?

That's a good question, yeah.

And the Typically around the pool, you have to have security fence kits

Right, but what we are here for today is for just specifically for the permit for the pool being installed.

Give or time. Give or time. They'll have

to comply with today's code because even though it was installed back then, they didn't apply for a permit. They'll come in, they'll apply for a permit, and then it'll be reviewed under the applicable codes today. And it

just somehow never made it to us until now, since back Right,

I can't speak to No, know, I'm gonna

That was just a blanket statement, you know, I can't believe we haven't seen this come before us before at five years.

Normally we try to keep things on a timeline. We standards, operating procedures that we apply in terms of time frames, but we're not there's no legal requirement that we initiate a case within a certain time. The city always has discretion, and quite often we do work with people. Think in these situations that Ms. Reese has taken over some of that has been kind of some staffing issues that we've had. No worries.

Ms. Reese, have you actually seen the pool yourself?

No, but I have spoken with her and I have the emails that there's no denial of the pool. No,

the reason I'm asking you that is if you had seen it, you would have seen if there's a security fence around it, but you haven't seen it. Correct. Because that's a concern regardless when it comes back up, it still needs to be a security fence around it.

Yes.

Well, and for Daniel's point, mean it's, I'm sorry,

Jared. Jared.

It's got to comply with current code and if the current code specifies the fence, then in order to get it past inspection, it'll have to be there, so that'll be the process will handle it. Hopefully this will be

I hope so, after five years.

This will move the contractor along to get the permits cleared out. Any more questions for Inspector Rees on this case? No? Can I have

a first motion? 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? First motion carries. I have a second.

I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before 01/19/2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. Second. All in favor?

Aye. All opposed? Alright. Second. Motion carries. Next case is 3.26 on our agenda case 180Eight-two55 respondents Angel Investment Group of Tampa Incorporated at 1039 West Avenue in violation of code for permits, an issue in order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? No? Inspector Rees, you have the floor.

Okay. Inspector Rees, this is a reference to 1039 West Avenue, case number 18825. There's one violation here. Again, for permits required, section four Dash203DotADot1, specifically for an installation of a shed that is over a 100 square feet that is on the property. The original notice was sent 08/20/2024.

My final notice was sent 05/13/2025. The original compliance date was 09/10/2024. Here is the physical posting of the notice for hearing on December 5. And this is the shed that is in question that requires the permit. At the time of inspection, there they do have extension cords running along across the back of the yard into the shed there as well as on the other side. That's the side that you see from street view. And that is a street view.

Wow. That's a tiny home, Yeah. Not somebody's living there. That's a barn. Yeah.

The previous inspector did it came in as someone who's living there, but we have to be able to prove that. So with

the This is common sense. Mean, somebody's lifting that thing.

Oh, yeah. But,

yeah. See, they even got that they even got the lawn chair out front, lazy boy out there, you know, to sit back at night and watch the mosquitoes.

Yes. And that was my pictures from today. Just for good measure, I did go ahead and take measurements of the shed. So it looks like from side to side, it's going it's ten ten feet over 10 feet on one side. Oops,

sorry. About

16. 10 feet

long. Yeah. And 15 on the other. So it's over 100 square That's the point. One

square Right.

100 and Compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit. We're pressing compliance on or before 01/19/2026 to obtain a permit and six months from issue and date issuance of permits to complete said said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of a $150 per day each day that it exists. Any questions?

Alright. Yeah.

I noticed from the street view photo that it looked like this thing was like two or three feet from the fence. It is I'm I'm assuming part of this may be a setback issue.

It appears that it will be a setback issue, as well as it appears that the structure is in front of the primary structure. I'll go back to that. But with, again, with the process of getting a permit and having proper documentation that will resolve their their or actually give them their options of what they need to do. Let me go back to it. So could maybe my other angle. There we go. So you could see this is the primary structure here. It's very much past, you know, Yeah. Before

Okay.

Have you been in contact with the owner?

Absolutely no contact, just with the tenants of the primary structure. I've attempted contact knocking on the door of the shed, but I've never had anybody open it.

What did the tenants say about it? I mean, have they said anyone to live in it or no?

Well, they have, but in order for that to even apply, they would have to be willing to come testify.

Right.

Which a lot of people are very afraid to do that. Their housing situations, whatever that may be, are not willing to do that. So that is my reasoning for not going forward with an ADU.

You still have to think about safety if something would happen, if somebody was actually living in there and something did happen, know, and I forbid that, you know, we see that on the news.

Sure, I'm ready.

Okay, any other questions board, Inspector Rees? All right, can I get a first one? Mr.

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

Second.

All in favor?

Aye. All opposed? First motion carries. We'll get a second.

I move to amend an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before 01/19/2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect or settle such lien.

Second. All in favor?

Aye. All opposed? Second motion carries. All right. 3.27 on our agenda has been withdrawn. 3.28 has been continued to our February meeting. 3.29 on our agenda case one hundred ninety one-twenty five find respondent Richard and Nicole Pendleton at 3002 And 68 San Mateo Street in violation of code for permits, initiate an order with compliance deadline and fines if, in compliance if, fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Yes. We come forward,

Oh, good. Good.

If you could give me a moment to speak

to Nicole. Okay. Mister Kenny's shit. That's what that's how we met. Not mine.

As big as

a barn. That's I can't

That's how yeah. That's how mister Kenny would meet him after he was out there trying to, you know, he was trying to shoehorn 10 pounds

Alright. Let me bring up San Mateo for you.