The Chairman of the Code Compliance Board and I call this meeting to order. The NSB Code Compliance Board of July 18, 2024. The procedures of this hearing are to provide due process to every respondent and the city in accordance with Florida State Statue 162.073, which states formal rules of evidence shall not apply the fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceeding. Here say is a missible but only to support other competent substantial evidence. Other evidence must be presented. Are there any questions? Any decision made today can be appealed by sending notice of appeal to the circuit court within 30 days of the execution of the orders per floor to state statute 162.11. Can we have roll call please? Dan Copper. Here. Clifford Warren. Here. Albert Shamancki. Yeah, Kathleen Brown, here, Michael Slinton, I was supposed to be here. Ruth Kismaric, here. Oh yeah, you were here. Okay, Michael, we move today. Brain Cills are gone. That concludes roll call. Everybody's here. We have a quorum. Okay. Do any of the board members have any X partake communications to disclose For the record none and do did all the board members have a chance to look over the minutes the last meeting of May 15th, 2024 and Can we have a motion to approve? I make a motion to approve the meeting. Second. Minutes. Okay. Okay. Dan Crawford. Yes. Clifford Warren. Aye. Al Shamanski. Yeah. Aaron Dennis. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Michael Sleighton. Yes. Ruth Kesmer. Yes. Ocean Carries. Okay. We'll have the swearing in of the staff respondents and any witnesses that will appear in front of us today if you can stand to be sworn in. Please stand to raise your right hand. State your full name. In the matter to which you're about to give testimony, do you swear or affirm the tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? The witnesses have been sworn in. And if we can hear our first case of old business. Our first case is 826 Daughtery Street, Shelly Friend Presenting. Good afternoon. This is the case number CCB0265-2024. Properties located at 826 Deltru Street. This property is owned are two single family residential. On May 15, 2024 the board found Lane Wilkes and or entity in violation of IPMC 302.08 motor vehicles IPMC 304.3 premise identification section 26-914 section 6 accessory improvements section 26-914 section 8 landscaping section 26-9, Section 9, Trash and Debris, and Section 26914, Section 13, Outdoor Storage, and gave until July 12, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the board found that the violations were not corrected by this date, a fine of $25 per violation, per day shall be imposed for each day. The violations exist. The board order was mailed certified mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on May 20th, 2024. The board order was posted on the property May 17th, 2024. The property was inspected on July 11th, 2024, and the following violations remain on the property. IPMC 302.08 motor vehicles. All the other violations have been cured. It is staff's recommendation. The board imposes a fine of $25 per day commencing on July 12th, 2024, and continuing until the property is brought into full compliance, fine not to exceed the maximum amount of $10,000. I have not heard from the owner, the property owner, about the vehicles. At the last hearing, I told her she needs to contact me to show proof of registration. And that the vehicles do operate. I have had no communication and I have pictures, a picture a week after the first hearing and a picture today that shows the vehicles are in the same position. The only thing that looks a little different is they put a little air in the front tires but the tag still remains expired and I had my supervisor had looked up for the Wyoming license plates do require that you get a new registration sticker so I just have those. They appear to not have been moved and again I said I did I did not hear any I did not have any communication with the property owner To show me proof that they are operable and That there is a current registration Any questions from the board members Pardon me, but was last time you notice the unregistered place today? Today. Yes, sir. That's one of the pictures from today. And the one that doesn't have the time stamp is a week after the last hearing. And there's been no improvement since the vehicles remain the same, the only thing like I said. Any communication at all. No communication, I haven't talked to her since. And they signed here. They're all their certified letters, they sign. Yes, correct. They receive their mail. Mm-hmm. Do we have a motion? I make a motion that is stated by the officer. You do? Do we have a second? I make a motion then stated by the officer. You do? Do you have a second? Yeah, a point of information. Yes. Could you just repeat your motion on what you said? Yes. Excuse me. Oh, all right. I'm sorry. All right. No, you're fine. You may find out. Oh, I'm sorry. I have a question on paper here. Okay. It's my recommendation that the board impose a fine of $25 per day commencing on July 12th and continuing until the property is brought into full compliance. The fine not to exceed maximum amount of $10,000. Thank you. Second. I said we're just a second. OK. OK. Roll call, Dan Coffer. Aye. Clifford Warren. Aye. Albert Schmanzki. Aye. Aaron Dennis. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Michael Slaton. Yes. Ruth Kessmerrick. Yes. All right, thank you. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify compliance with this order and also be aware that the respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out in 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondent within five years of this date of the order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which a find up to $500 per day may be imposed. The next hearing date will be August 15, 2024. 600 South Mertle has been withdrawn. The next case will hear as 1507 Paul Meadow, Beverly Abramsome presenting. This case is CCB0226-2024. The address is 1507 Palmetto Street. The property is owned R2, single-family residential. The violation cited is Section 74, R146. Local business tax imposed. Local Business Tax Imposed. On May 15, 2024, the board found money sunk LLC and or entity in violation of section 74-146. Local Business Tax Imposed and gave until 1 p.m. June 13, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the board found that the violation was not corrected by the state, the co-compliance board would consider setting a fine and lean. On this case, at the July 18th hearing. The board order was malcertified male to the property owner, or sign for and accepted on May 20th, 2024. The board order was posted on the property May 16th, 2024. That also sent a copy of the board order to respond it on July 10, 2024. As I've July 17, 2024, the city is still waiting for additional information to be submitted. But it has been in contact with the property owner and he has this house listed for sale. He has not had any renters in it. So at this time I would like to continue this case until September 19th, 2024, to allow some additional time. Thank you. Any questions from the board? I need to accept her recommendation. We have a motion. We have a second. I have a second. Who said second? L. Oh. Okay. Dan Coffer. Aye. Clifford Warren. Aye. Alchemynsky. Aye. Aaron Dennis. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Michael Slayton. Yes. Ruth Kessmerrick. Yes. Kathleen Brown. I. Michael Slayton. Yes. Ruth Kazmerich. Yes. Motion carries. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify complaints with this order and to also be aware that the respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondent within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which you find up to $500 per day may be imposed. Next case. Our next case is the first new business. It's 200 live oak street, Beverly Abramson presenting. This code case is CCB-0183-20, 200 live oak street is the address and the property zone MU mixed use central business district. On May 12, 2024, co-compliance received a complaint regarding the operation of a church and running of rooms with no record of a BTR. On March 14, 2024, I researched this property using the internet and found a Facebook page for the refuge house of prayer and some references to this property. I called the phone number listed for the contact listed as owner and left a voice message asking them to give me a call. This time, there's no, at that time, there was no BTR for the rental nor house of worship. The property was found to be in violation of section 74, 146, local business tax imposed. On March 26, 2024, notice a violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance state of April 9, 2024. A copy was certified by the mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on March 30th, 2024. A copy was also attached to an email and sent to the property owner. On March 26th, 2024, the office received a phone call from the property owner. He stated that he had received the notice via email and had submitted an application for business tax receipt and will follow an application for business tax for C and will follow up with the business tax specialist. There have been multiple conversations between the owner and city staff. On April 25th, 2024, I researched the city software and found that an application for a BTR was submitted on March 17th for the rental property. Therefore, I would do this case from the May hearing and reschedulant for the July hearing. On May 7th, 2024, I found signs being placed alongside of the road, different roads that read the Refuge Pool Service. I found that there is no business, BTR for this business either. On May 9th, 2024, an application for a business tax was submitted for a pool cleaning service which is the science that I was finding. On July 1st an application was for a BTR was submitted for the Worship Center. On May 15, 2024 an application was submitted for a change of use permit. On June 25th, 2024, a notice appearing for the July 18th hearing was posted on the property. A copy was also certified mail to the property owner. The USPS website shows the notice was left no authorized recipient available on July 5th, 2024. On July 18th, 2024, a follow-up inspection showed the city the business tax specialist is still waiting on documentation to be submitted from the respondent. It is my recommendation that the code board find Sarah and Sheikin, Pendleton, and or entity and violation of section 74-146 local business tax imposed and give until August night to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance it is my recommendation to impose a one-time fine in the amount of $250 until the property is brought into full compliance. Any questions from the board members? The property owners here. Would anybody like to speak on behalf of this case from the audience? Do you come forward? If we could have you be served before you speak, if we could have you sign in so that it's official and Sydney, I don't believe you have sworn Okay, did you stand up this morning? Okay, we'll need to square you when you get to the microphone before you can see I didn't stand I saw him standing Do you mind restoring me and just for the record? Yes. If you'll go to the microphone please. Please stand and raise your right hand state your full name. Jake, you can tell them. In the matter to which you're about to give testimony, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. The witness has been sworn in. OK, so I think to start off when we, our BTRs weren't approved because we had the change of use in process. And so until we get the change of use done, we can't get the BTRs done. So this is our, one of the things that they needed was, there was multiple things that they needed, which we responded to the city in an email online about each of those things. But one of these things was our nonprofit status. And we did meet with the city with multiple people with a religious lawyer that then went through the process of telling us how we can go ahead and do a change of use permit. So we did that. We submitted our 5133 status. We just didn't have the affirmation letter combined with the declaration from the IRS. This is the old address on here. So they wanted an updated address for New Smyrna Beach. So we have that in the mail coming in nine days. In addition to the change of use, the guest house was operating beforehand. I didn't realize I had to actually have any kind of BTR for that because I thought it was existing as a guest house before we bought it in January. So the top portion is two units that are kind of a guest house right now. So there's two renters in there. So we have this registered as LLC under Sunbiz, and we did upload those documents as well to the city portal. The problem with the pool business was that the pool business was under Sunbiz titled a DBA under our LLC as a guesthouse. So we had to go back and we had to, as a fictitious name for the pool business so I didn't have a register multiple businesses. So the pool business itself, which we started in May, we didn't know that we had to do another BTR for that because we already submitted an existing one for the guest house. So we went ahead and we submitted that a second as far as I understand we submitted a second one for the pool business as well but we're waiting on for Sun Biz to give us the letter because the way that it was registered was under the Refuge, instead of the Refuge guesthouse LLC. So anyways, we're just waiting on that letter. So we're waiting on two letters as far as I understand. We also, to make it in the compliance for the church activities in the bottom, which is once a week primarily, we submitted all the documents today to Stephanie for Pau. This is the ADA unit drawings. I literally just got the last ones today. We submitted all the documents today to Stephanie for our power. This is the ADA unit drawings. I literally just got the last ones today. So this is the only one I actually have. So this is for all the parking. Much of it was existing before we had. We have to put in a wheelchair accessible accessibility. And then we have the other ones I just emailed her before I came here. We're for the bathroom. That will be done all the bathroom ADA and everything should be done by September 1st. For everything for ADA purposes, for the change of use status to be completed, after the change of use status is completed, then we can actually get an acceptance to the two BTRs. That's as far as I, a lot of what we had to show you, and Stephanie has it all, I do have a problem with the online portal that I can't upload anything else. It's quite a few different BTRs and changes of using things, but I don't know why it's not working. So now I just emailed them to Stephanie. So I haven't been able to upload those last documents by September 1st, but if I at least had to probably October 1st, I think for sure it will be done. Everything will be done. I think that's the only thing I would like to ask would be, like we for the existing permits right now that we just completed for the church aspect of things, we literally it took us two months instead of one month that the contractor said. So I'm not sure that I can give my word by September 1st but if I at least had till probably October 1st I think for sure it will be done. Everything will be done in some meeting. So if I can ask a question our meeting would be done in the third Thursday in October would you be pretty certain at that point you would handle that? 100% yeah that will be done for sure. I didn't really want to put stuff on a credit card by just deciding. At this point, I just got to put it all on a credit card. So any other question? Yeah, have you supplied all that information to the code enforcement officer? Yes, I have. You received that? Okay. Well, I don't... Stephanie, sorry. Yeah. I don't get the information. He sends it to the business tax specialist and Stephanie for our algorithm through the system. I track the system to see that it's been updated. But you're aware of what's going on? I am aware of the things that are happening. I know that he is in the process of moving forward and trying to get all the BTRs and needs. Any other questions? So what's your recommendation now? Well, my recommendation was to find a binoculars and give until August 9th to bring the property into compliance in a one-time fine of 250. My concern with this is that he is renting the property. He has tenants there and from what I read on the Facebook page and stuff, he is holding services and he's advertising for the pool service so I don't know if he's out there cleaning pools as well without getting the proper documentation that's required. But otherwise, you know, if he's trying now, so if you want to extend the period of time for him, I don't have a problem with that. I want to pose to it. I need some clarification on why you need until October to get this done. So is that okay? I just met with two, or I have a site, or a concrete specialist coming for the ADA unit because it has to be a hard surface. So they're coming tomorrow. I met with a contractor today at the property for the construction of the ADA inside. And just my experience has been that it takes usually double the time of what they actually have said. So like the previous stuff that was supposed to be done for the church facility took two months instead of one month and was double the cost instead of what they had agreed to. So I would just ask for more time primarily because of that. I think we can probably get most of done by September 1st. And I should have a lot of the documents in the next nine to nine days, at least for the IRS said yesterday, 15 days or so, maybe more for the, I don't know how long that honestly the sunbiz document will take quite frankly. That's just kind of up to them. But I did talk on the phone with IRS and they did, they're mailing me an affirmation there. It's just that the contracting part of it is a little bit more labor intensive. And so I don't want to guarantee a date. We do have, and I just want to be very open and clear, we do have a meeting going on on Sunday nights, and we usually have about 50 people that come together, kids and adults. And so, but we're not usually in this facility for about an hour and a half or so and then we worship and then we go. But that's the primary meeting. Throughout the week, I just use it as my office because the bottom part is of personal residence. But I will make the AD compliant. 100% I will come back here. October 1st I think is more than enough time. I just want to make sure I don't say something that I can't do. So, it's just a question. You mentioned in your experience is what you said. Aren't you aware of all the necessary things that should have been done before you should took on the project in your experience? Well, we bought it in January, and it took us about three months to renovate it while we were living there personally. So my wife and I, and we have seven kids. And so that was a pretty big, that was not the time for him that I thought it would be done in. It was supposed to be done in a month and a half. But it just took double the cost, double the time. And then pretty much every project has been like that for this place at this moment. So we gave everything we had to get it done. Everything renovated on the inside at three months. But we were kind of tapped out after that financially. So we did what we could. And then we, but we will 100% get this done. It's just experienced to experiment experience to be working with contractors that seems to be the case. So. Did you say one of your concerns was the running the pool business right now? Well, all of it is, he's got three different businesses and they're all being run as far as I know without getting the business tax receipt and having all the documentation that's required for it. I don't know that there's any life safety issues, maybe with the rental or having that many people in one place, I don't know. But I think it's a concern and I know that a fine isn't going to change things but I don't know. Just to be clear, we're only here on the business tax receipt. Okay, so we're not here because he hasn't pulled permits for the construction. We're not here because he's are any other reason it's only business tax receipt. Yeah, I do believe that all of the construction that was done has been completed. I think they have permits for everything and the permits have been final. OK. I do have just one clarification. We can't do the BTRs until we get the change of use done. Right. Until you get the parking lot done. Which means until I get the construction done. We could do the BTRs today if it wasn't for the change of use. Correct. So just come back up here real fast. You could get the BTRs most likely for the pool and for the guest house. Yeah, I already have all the information for the guest house. That's already done. As far as the pools go, it was waiting on the sunbiz document. It said the refuged. It didn't say under the fictitious name it said the refuge. So we had to, we had to edit it to say the refuge pools. And so the reason you're asking for October is because you can't get the change of use signed off on until your construction of the parking lot is complete. Exactly. And once that's done, then you can get your BTR at that point. Yeah, the parking lot, the inside ADA bathroom and the third thing was the, I think it was primarily the bathroom and the ramp to go up. Do you need a license to run that pool business? A DPR license? I have license, yes. You do have one. Yes, that's right. Thank you. Can we get a motion from the board? I'd like to move that we give him until the October meeting. That's how much time he thinks he needs. I'll second the motion. OK. We have a motion. Is that Kathleen DeSecond? Yeah. Thank you. I'll second. I'll second. Okay. We have a motion. Is that Kathleen DeSecond? Yeah. Thank you. In that October hearing, I believe, is October the 17th. October 17th. Dan? Aye. Clifford Warren? Aye. Albert Schamansky? Aye. Aaron Dennis? Aye. Kathleen Brown? Yes. Michael Slayon. Yes with Kazmeric Okay motion carries The respondent is also further ordered and to contact the code Inspector to verify the compliance with this order and also be aware that the respondents have the right to appeal The order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondent within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which you find up to $500 per day may be imposed. Next case. south thus that really apron some presenting. Code KCCB-0237-2024 is for 730 south dust street. This property is owned R2 single-family residential. I have photos but I don't know what time. At what point? I'm March 25th, 2024. Co-compliance received a complaint regarding minimum housing standards violations. On March 26th, 2024, an inspection was conducted and the property was found to be in violation of Section 26, Section 914. Subsection 2, property maintenance required, exterior surfaces. Section 26, Section 914, subsection 4, exterior windows and doors. Section 26, Section 914, subsection 8, landscaping. Section 66, S32, placement of containers for garbage collection and containers. Section 74, S146, local business tax imposed. IPMC, 305.3, interior surfaces. IPMC 704.6, F, single and multiple stations smoke alarms. On April 19, 2024, a notice of violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of May 31, 2024. A copy was mailed, certified mailed with property owner and was signed for and accepted on April 23, 2024. On April 19th, the tenant living at this house invited me to do a walkthrough of the house. She was concerned with repairs that need to be made and access for critters to enter the house. I observed flooring that was in the process being replaced. There was one area where the flooring did not meet the wall. You could see outside through the inside of the house through the crack. There were face plates missing from light switches leaving wires exposed. Some of the windows had framing that was deteriorated with frotted wood. The windows did not lock on their own. There's a stick of wood to keep them closed. The glass on at least two windows was cracked. There were cracks in the drywall. I could see through from one room to another. Some of the windows didn't have screens. Some screens that were there were ripped. There were chipped and peeling, there was chipped and peeling paint on the exterior walls of the house. There was a dryer being stored outside with the door still intact. There was a tire with no rim outside in the yard. The grass and weeds were overgrown and there were no smoke detectors in any of the required rooms and no GFCIs were required. On April 30th, 2024, I received a phone call from the property owner letting me know that she had received the notices. She told me that she lives in South Carolina and did not know the condition of the property and wanted to know if I could email her the pictures that I had taken. I sent the email with the pictures attached and also told her that a BTR is required and instructions on how to apply. On June 28, 2024, an electrical permit was issued for installing smoke detectors and installing GFI's checkout wiring and mark panel that was the scope of work. The permit was inspected and finaled on July 2, 2024. On July 7, 2024, an application for business tax receipt was submitted but not yet issued. On July 12, the follow-up inspection showed the following violations still exist. There's only three of them now that exist and that's IPMC 305.3 for interior surfaces, section 26, section 914, subsection 2 for exterior surfaces and the business tax receipt, section 74, 146 local business tax imposed. Therefore, it is my recommendation that the code compliance board find even may hinder Kenan and or entity and violation of section 74-146 local business tax imposed an issue I find a one-time fine of $250 and then for section 26 914 subsection 2 exterior surfaces exterior surfaces and IPMC 305.3 interior surfaces those two just a $50 fine on those not just $50 fine we have to impose the fine separately for the both business tax find them in violation and give until August 9th to bring the property in full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance it is my recommendation to impose a one time fine and the amount of 250 for the local business tax imposed and the remaining violations is noted until the property is in full compliance with the fine amount not to exceed $15,000. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak about this case? For the record, none. Any questions from the board? I have a question that one picture you put up there. It has been work done. So. Yep. You have one there where you show an electrical panel that you question if it's a husband thing. And it looks like it was relocated to make. Was there a permit? Because you do need to permit to relocate that. Yes, there was a permit. Yes, there was a permit. The permit was final. The permit included smoke detectors and all the GFI's. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions? I move it. We have doubt the recommendation. We're the second. I'll second. Jan Koffer. Aye. Clifford Warren. Aye. Al Shamanski. Aye. Aaron Dennis. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Al Shamanski. Aye. Erin Dennis. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Michael Slayton. Yes. Ruth Kazmerich. Yes. Motion carries. Okay. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify complaints with this order and to also be aware that respondents had the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondent within five years from the state of the order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which a fine up to $500 per day may be imposed. Next case please. The next case is 1311 Paul Meadows Street. This has been withdrawn. The next case is 2640 Brookline Avenue Beverly Abramson presenting. This case is CCB-0311-2024. Property location is 2640 Brookline Avenue. This property is zoned R2 single family residential. On April 26, 2024, Code Compliance received with complaint regarding trash all over the yard and trash cans are always full and visible. And there's also a shed without permit. On April 26, 2024, inspection was conducted and the property was found to be in violation of Section 26-171A, permit required for the shed. Section 66-32, placement of containers for garbage collection. Section 70-5, object objects and obstructions in the public right-of-way. IPMC-302.1, sanitation, IPMC-302.8, motor vehicles, IPMC 303.1 swimming pools, IPMC 303.2 enclosures, IPMC 304.3 premises identification, IPMC 308.1 accumulation of rubbish or garbage. On May 3rd, a notice of violation was posted on property with the initial compliance date of May 31st, 2024. Copy was also mailed certified to the property owner and signed for and accepted on May 6th, 2024. On June 6th, 2024, follow-up inspection was conducted. Some things had been moved around and were removed from site. The vehicle that was beside the shed is gone. A piece of furniture is gone. The basketball that was a butting the street has been laid down on the ground a little bit further away from the road but it's still in the right of way. And there was a large green and yellow bag of debris. It's also gone. On July 18, 2024, a follow-up inspection should the property remains in violation of code section 26171A permit required, section 66-32, placement of containers for garbage collection, section 70-5, objects and obstructions in public right away. IPMC302.1, sanitation, IPMC303.1, swimming pools, IPMC303.2, enclosures, IPMC304.3, premises identification, and IPMC308.1, accumulation of rubbish and garbage. It is my recommendation that the code compliance board find I-D-M and Ronald A. A-Maker and or entity and violation of sections 26171A garbage collection $10 a day. Section 70-5, objects and instructions in the public right away $15 a day. IPMC 302.1, sanitation $25 a day. IPMC 303.1, swimming pools $50 a day. IPMC 303.2, the closure $75 a day. IPMC 304.3, premises identification $75 a day. IPMC 304.3 premises identification, $25 a day, and IPMC 308.1 accumulation of garbage and rubbish, $25 a day, and give until August 9, 2024 to bring the violation property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, it is my recommendation to impose a fine as suggested above until the property is brought coming to compliance. It is my recommendation to impose a fire and I've suggested above until the property is brought into full compliance. The fire amount is not to exceed $10,000. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to respond to this case? Please approach. You will speak one at a time. Please hold on a second. You'll need to speak one at a time and you will need to be sworn in. Come on up to the microphone please. She can come to the microphone to swear in but then speak one at a time. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Please stand and raise your right hand. State your full name. My name is either Am Hammer and I'm her. Jeffrey Allen, right to the second. In the matter to which year about to give testimony, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, ma'am. The witnesses have been sworn in. Thank you. Let me start by saying, as you can tell, my aunt, my wife, she's blind. I was recently incarcerated for about 90 days to which I had spoken to my wife on the phone when the letters had came, everything, the shed. I didn't know I had to have a permit for it and if they went and did the inspection today, they see everything is on the outside. I mean, actually, sweaty from getting it prepped to move today. It will be off the property, off the premises. I went and spent about $250 a home depot. The middle of last week, I've got everything to repair the screenroom. I already cut down the palm tree that was growing on the screenroom. I cut that, I got to drag that out to the road when I get home. Garbage cans, I'm in the process, I'm brand new new I'm in the process. I take care of everything. I just came home I just came home on July I just came home on July set our June second So I'm just trying to get everything back in order and Take compliance I noticed the numbers. I didn't know that was a thing. I would that'll be corrected I said you said August 8th. That's to be all everything has to be corrected by are we starting to find? August 8th. That's to be all everything has to be corrected by. Are we starting to find? No, no, no, no. August 8th. Is that what they gave? Okay. Is it your testimony? Oh, okay, you guessed it. Other than that, I mean, I do apologize. As I said, you can see my aunt's blind. She's the patriarch of her family. She takes, she's a guy for your woman. She takes care of all of us at the end of the day. And I'm doing my part to just make the property as what it is. Beautiful again. So trust and believe, if you're given the time, it will be that. Any questions from the board? This is what you're saying is basically you're starting to take care of it. And do you have an expectation date of when you can come light 18th right now. So August 8th would make what 20 days from now? A month? Can I get to September 1st? That would be awesome. What's our next meeting? Next meeting is August 15th, I believe. This is 15th is our next meeting. When is the meeting in September? Next meeting is August 15th. This is our next meeting. When is the meeting in September of the 19th? September 19th. September 19th. September 19th. September 19th? Yes, sir. Absolutely. Thank you so much. So what has to be voted out? Yes, sir. Well, in the compliance date before the hearing, right? Right. Okay. So, so that's our next meeting. So, would you like to reassess that and say before that, because it would have to be inspecting for the meeting. Yeah. The number first is. Yeah, definitely. Huh? September 1st. Thank you. Yeah. September 1st is a decent date day and then the inspecting is yet there by the next meeting September 19 and give it to you. You'll go with that. Yes sir. Oh, make a motion. Okay. I'm sorry about that. Just a conversation. I like to make a motion that by September 1st according to the recipient that he will be bringing it up to code and the Beverly will make the inspection and we'll see what happens at the next meeting and Hey guys, I greatly appreciate it. It's a Okay, Dan Koffer. Hi. Cliff Warren? Aye. Al Shubansky? Aye. Aaron Dennis? Yes. Kathleen Brown? Aye. Michael Slighten? Yes. Ruth Kessameric? Yes. Motion carries. Okay. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify the compliance with this order and to also bear where the respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondents within five years from the date of this order, shall be treated as a repeat violation of which a find up to $500 per day may be imposed. Yes, sir? Next case. Thank you. Thank you. The next case is 306 Murray. That has been withdrawn. The next case is 418 South Riverside. Shelly Friend presenting. This is case number CCB 0 426-2024. Properties located at 141 8s out of Riverside Drive. And this property is owned are two single family residential. On May 21st, 2024, co-compliance received a complaint about a boat detailing business in a house in garage apartment being rented out with no business tax receipt. On May 22nd, 2024, I spoke with a tenant who was out detailing boats at the residence. He told me that he was having electrical issues over at his location that he normally does his work, and he advised the boats would be gone the following week. And I did another inspection on the property. May 22nd found the property was in violation on, excuse me, for IPMC 302.8 motor vehicles LDR 504.02 R2 zoning regulations Section 26-914 subsection 8 landscaping Section 74-146 local business tax imposed on May 24th 2024 I notice a violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of June 7th, 2024. A copy was also mailed certified mail to the property owner and was unclaimed and returned to sender on June 18th, 2024. On July 11th, 2024, a follow-up inspection showed the following violations remained and that would be the IPMC 302.8 motor vehicles and section 74-146 local business tax imposed. It is staff's recommendation the board for the board to find land, Newwind and or entity in violation of section 74-146 local business tax imposed an IPMC 302.8 motor vehicles and give until August 8th, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, it staffs recommendation to impose a one-time fine of $250 for Section 74-146 local business tax imposed and $25 per day for the IPMC 302.8 motor vehicles at the August 15, 2024 hearing until the property is brought into full compliance. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak about this case? For the record none. Any questions from the board? No. I make a motion that we accept the recommendation. I second. It was Cliff. Or Al, you second? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. It was to August 8, right? Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. It was to obviously. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Dan Cawfer. Aye. Cliff Warren. Aye. Al Shamanski. Aye. Aaron Dennis. Yes. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Michael Sighton. Yes. Ruth Kesmerich. Yes. Motion carries. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify the complaints the response is the response is the response is the response is the response is the response is the response is the response is the response is the response is the response is the response is the response is $500 per day may be imposed. Next case. Next case is 27 fairway circle, shelly friend presenting. This is case number CCB 0429-2024, properties located 27 fairway circle. This property is owned are two single family residential. On May 22nd, 2024, co-compliance received a complaint regarding a green pool and tall grass. On May 22, 2024, an inspection was conducted and the property was found to be in violation of Section 26, Section 914, Section 8 landscaping, Section 26, Section 914, Section 11, swimming pools. On May 23, 2024, a notice of violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of June 6, 2024. A copy was also mailed, certified, mailed to the property owner, and was returned June 15, 2024. A follow-up inspection showed the violations of Section 269-4914, Section 8 landscaping, and Section 269-14, Section 11, swimming pools. As of today, the violation still remains. I have pictures of the grass. Basically, it's the side yard grass and the weeds around the backyard fence around the pool and the pool is a little lighter green. It's not as dark, but it's still out of compliance. It's staff's recommendation that the board find Paul, Mughonen, and or entity in violation of Section 26-914, Section 8 landscaping, and Section 26-914, Section 11 swimming pools and given till August 8, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, it staffs recommendation to impose a fine at the August 15, 2024 hearing, in the amount of $50 per day per violation until the property is brought into full compliance. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak about this case? For the record? No? Any questions from the board? With this. Any? Any? Any community? Because I see this is on plane. The sort of plane. Correct. Yes, he did. Actually, he texted me this last week. And this is not the first time I've had a case on this pool. But so he does have my number. he contacted me and told me I can come inspect the pool which I did today and you see where we're at with that. I make the motion and state of my yaw. I second. Michael can you make sure you're in the microphone and then you second. I second. Thank you. I thought you did. Thank you. Dan Copper. Aye. Cliff Warren. Aye. Al Shamanzki. Aye. Aaron Dennis. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Michael Slayton. Yes. Ruth Kazmerich. Yes. Motion carries. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code in terms of to verify compliance with this order and to also be aware that respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondent within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation by which of a fine of the $500 may be imposed. Next case. The next case is 508. Terrier Way has been withdrawn. The next case is 1300 North Dixie Freeway, Shelley Friend presenting. This is case number CCB0424-2024, properties located at 1300 North Dixie Freeway. This property is zone B3, highway business, highway service business. On May 21, 2024, while conducting inspections in the area, I observed tall grass at this location. On May 21, 2024, an inspection was conducted and the property was found to be in violation of section 26-914, section 8 landscaping. On May 23, 2024, a notice of violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of June 11th, 2024. A copy was also mailed, certified mail to the property owner and was returned June 12th, 2024. As of today, the property remains in violation of Section 26-914 Section 8 landscaping. It is staff's recommendation, the board find AB Investments LLC, NOR Entity and violation of Section 26-914 Section 8 landscaping and give until August 8th, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, it's staff's recommendation to impose a fine of $100 per day at the August 15, 2024 hearing until the property is brought into full compliance. I went by the property I have a picture from today. It's the vacant auto place that I had a case on before with the vacant property. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak about this case? One question I, since this property has been in front of us several times now, have you had any verbal contact with the company? I still, the same mailing address on the property appraiser. And I tried to look online and Google the name and different things. I tried different numbers, but none of them even work. So, no, I haven't had no contact with the owner. That's happened in the past, then. Any other questions from the board? I'm moving. We'll accept the recommendation. Cliff has already talked in. Oh. Good. I just move that we accept the recommendation. I'll second. I will accept the recommendation. Cliff is already talking. Oh, Cliff. Go ahead, Cliff. I just move that we accept the recommendation. I'll second it. Jan Copper. Aye. Cliff Warren. Aye. Alistair Mansky. Aye. Karen Dennis. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Michael Slayton. Yes. Ruth Kessameric, motion carries. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify a compliance with this order and to also be aware that respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the, any violation of the same code by the respondents within five years from the state of the sort or shall be treated as a repeat violation of which they find up to $500 per day may be imposed. Okay, your case is there. Hold on the table. Next case please. Next case is 437 Bush Lshell Drive, Shelly from presenting. Next case here is case number CCB0437-2024. Properties located at 437 Bousshell Drive. This property is zoned R4 multifamily residential. On May 23rd, 2024, the co-compliance received the complaint regarding the exterior condition of the property. On May 30th, 2024, co-compliance officer Jason Yates, M.I. self-inspected the property. The property was found to be in violation of Section 26-914, Section 2 exterior surfaces. On June 12th, 2024, a notice of violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of June 25th, 2024. I noticed a violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of June 25, 2024. A copy was mailed certified, mailed to the property owner, and was signed for and accepted on June 14, 2024. On June 27, 2024, a follow-up inspection show that the property remains in violation of Section 26-914, Section 2, exterior surfaces. Its staff's recommendation to board, find Bouchel Island 13, Condominium Association, incorporated NRND in violation of Section 26-914, Section 2, exterior surface, and given to August 8, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, it's staff's recommendation to impose a fine at the August 15, 2024 hearing of $250 per day until the property is brought into full compliance. I'm asking for the $250 fine because this has been an issue for almost I think two years now. And it's going to even get worse as the water, the rain, and it can cause more damage. There's interior damage, there's two units upper and lower. And there's damage to the structure, the wood, possibly mold, I don't know. But just over time, it could eventually, it could be a potential health and safety issue. At this time, it has not. I was up on the second floor taking pictures so it's basically the exterior surfaces and from what I understand typically the condominium association covers the exterior part of a condo and the homeowner is responsible for the interior. So that is where we're at with that with this a permit was pulled to start the construction but and even had and it was issued at extra time it doesn't expire till August 6th but the work has not been started and then I also just have I made copies of the initial complaint that you can So there are people here on this case that would like to speak on So I'll let them. Please come forward. If you can state your name for the record. Certainly. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Leanne Wagner. I'm the attorney for Bouchel Island 13 Condominium Association. And this might be the most interesting case you're going to have today because while Officer friend is absolutely right most of the time condominium associations are responsible for the exterior of the building here That is not the case. There were improvements made to the Lanai on the second floor unit that have caused water leakage That has unfortunately caused damage to the first floor unit that have caused water leakage that has unfortunately caused damage to the first floor unit. And Florida Statute 718 says that when an owner makes repairs or, excuse me, improvements to common elements or limited common elements, they become responsible for those items as well as any damages caused thereby or repairs or maintenance that's necessitated by those improvements. Separately, there are arbitration decisions from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, which if you're unfamiliar with that agency, it is the entity responsible for overseeing condominiums that make the same holdings that when an owner improves something that's on the common elements, they now become responsible for it. And probably the most important thing is that this is already the subject of the dispute in the Circuit Court for Volusia County, where the owners of the first and second floor units have sued the association. We believe that they are the ones who complain to this situation in an effort to make an end run around the court's decision, which are at the very infancy of the case. And I don't know how quickly judgment would be entered if we even get to that point. But there is a dispute as to who is actually responsible for these items. And there is the risk of an inconsistent ruling if this board finds that the association has to make the repairs and imposes a fine. We would suggest that this is more properly subject to the court's jurisdiction as that's where the plaintiffs chose to file their action. And we would ask that no fine be imposed, that no compliance date be set, and that the association be dismissed from this action with the owners of the first and second floor units being named as the individual's responsible to make their repairs. If I can ask Jay, what's your opinion? Well, can I ask you a question? Sure. Did the owners file for a permit to fix this structure? They actually tried to get a permit in the name of the association as I understand it. So they again are trying to voice the work on the association before there's been a determination of whose response it is. So just out of curiosity, if that's not the case because the notice of commencement must be signed by the property owner and the property owner technically as the HOA, would the property owner as the HOA sign the notice of commencement must be signed by the property owner and the property owner technically as the HOA. Would the property owner as the HOA sign the notice of commencement? I would advise them to sign it if the contract is between the owners and their contractor rather than between the association and the contractor. Okay. Because I think right now the goal for the city is this needs to be fixed one way or another. Whether it's going to be the Homeowners Association or the property owner, somebody needs to fix it. Agreed. So my response to you would be to continue this case so I could look at the documents as to what party should be named in this, whether it is the Homeowners Association or the property owners, and then render an opinion on that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I wouldn't completely dismiss it, but continue it for a little while. Continue to next month. Yeah. I think so. Yeah. I think a motion we continue it to next month. One second though. Is someone here else? I think the properties are here with like a chance of success. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry I do not know. If you can state your name for the record. Julian Thompson. I can't say. Julian Thompson. If you can speak into the mic. Just step up to the mic a little bit. I'm the owner of one of gosh it is like 102 which is the lower unit and Dave and Helene are in the upper unit. They're in Detroit. They couldn't join us this afternoon. They're in 202. Our understanding is that, well, Dave actually stated to the board the Home Honours Association that he would pay to get the work started. This has been going on for a long time. And we really want to get this building fixed. It's deteriorating. Water's still coming in. It's hurricane season. I have to stay at home because I worry that it's going to get really messy. And so I want to get it fixed. I don't want a temporary fix. We did a temporary fix in October of 2019. And it rained in again in September of 2022 which was with Hurricane Ian. And so that is my request. And I don't think that when the permit was issued that the Home Honours Association was on that. I think it was Davis construction pulled the permit. And I'm not for sure. But there is a lot of issues here that need to be addressed. And I really appreciate you taking this on to look at this. Thank you. So you can pull the permit to see who signed it actually then? Yes, so I'll go with code enforcement. I'm probably going to get some information so I can get as much information on what's going on here. And then come back to you. But my question was what I had seen in this is that a permit was pulled and the hiccup was the notice of compliance. We just had this issue come up. The notice of compliance must be signed off by the property owner which would be the HOA association it seems like. They're just signing off on the fact that construction could happen. It deals with leans and leaning the property and if they don't pay the cost then they could potentially lean the property which would implement the HOA at that point in time. But the way I had read this is that the private property owner had pulled that permit. They went into contract with a developer. So beside the point I think we need to figure out who we should properly be citing. Whether it is the HOA or whether it's the property owners and part of that's going to involve their HOA documents. Yeah, okay. Thank you. Ms. Thompson, can you please sign in over here? Anybody else like to speak? If you can state your name for the record? Robert Greece 391, Grinada Street, New Smyr. Well, a long friend of Jill Thompson here and Ben abreast involved with this situation for the past two years. As she said two years ago, the association took on the responsibility and accountability to research and investigate leakage into her unit. It was due to the exterior of the building. They removed the plaster, repaired, and replaced it. A year later it continued again. Then the owner upstairs called in an engineer to open the building up to inspect the outside what was causing it. They identified intrusion of water through the exterior surface. Then they covered it up with the patches as you can see on the picture there. It's been that way for a year to a year and a half now. My understanding of within communication with the David owner upstairs and Mrs. Thompson downstairs, that he was willing to foot the expense to fit so that if it was the owner's responsibility, but the question came up that it was the association's responsibility for the exterior of the buildings according to their bylaws. The permit was pulled and the association's name and the association has to sign commencement and they refuse to sign it. Then the party upstairs engaged with arbitration and then had to get, could not get final results on it and then they went into an attorney with a suit to try and sell it to find out whose response was reliable. And the course of this, we did find out and draw a poll of the records of the permit of the previous two owners prior to the current owner had Home Depot install windows on the lani with a city permit and signed off by the city inspectors. So that I do not know, Mrs. Thompson had, a year ago, had hurricane windows installed on her lower lani, which the permit had to be grown through the association and signed by the association. No exterior work can be done by the homeowner. It has to be through the, I don't know, back years ago when the first enclosure upstairs was done, what the ordinance, you know, the rules were. But today, everything's got to go through the association. It's my understanding and all the communications within this. And I just think, I'm like what you said, this has been going on way too long for an inconvenience of a woman in a home through this bureaucracy. Yeah, I mean, it's gotten you on the edge in the courts, but it needs to be addressed. And someone's in violation here. I mean, the violos may tell who's liable. And it needs to be resolved. So this lady can get back to her life. Thank you. Yes ma'am. You have any questions? No, thank you. If you can state your name for the record. Yes, I am Susan Engelman. I live in the pod, the four pod right next door. I'm in 439 and I'm in 202 so basically the same unit as David. My unit is the only one of our 16 association units that is for sale and I want to tell you what this mess has done to me. I am the collateral damage. I have not been able to sell my unit. People are concerned about the litigation. Lenders are concerned about the litigation. I have, I had a buyer last March and they pulled out and I don't know if it had anything to do with this or their lender or their regular finances. But I was back on the market in a depleted market trying now to sell my unit and losing money. And currently I do have a potential buyer, but their lender is not coming forward with an OK yet, because their lender is trying to get answers from our association lawyer. And I'm in like this bidding crisis because I keep on getting lower. And so for me, when David first sent out his letter of what was happening, I sent it to my lawyer and said, okay, what do I do? He said, oh, Susan, he said this happens all the time. He goes, you're just gonna have to put money in escrow. Okay, that's fine. I'll take it on, it happened on my watch. But now the question is, how much? Because if the association is found at fault, I could be liable as a unit owner for up to $20,000 because they waited to do the work. And so I just wanted this board to know what the collateral damage is on others of us, especially me being the only one that whose unit is trying to be for sale. My friends over in 4-41, same unit, 202, they got out before the association took on a lawyer. So they got out right at the baseline before all this mess really blew up, before mediation, before everything. So I just wanted the board to know what collateral damage was happening in this whole association mess. So I thank you for your time. Well, thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Robert Rees again. I thank you for your time. Well, thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Robert Rees again. Well, I forgot one more comment. On the reason we're here today is as a result of the delay in the arbitration decision, which I do not believe has been made yet and then the legal action of the suit. The last resort was maybe code enforcement could get something moving. That's the reason we are here today because we have not been able to accomplish anything through arbitration or the attorney yet. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So with that being said, we'll continue this case to the next hearing in August. What's the date? August 15th. Correct. With no fine or anything, yeah, we'll just have the time to review and then we'll re-gather and see. Well, I have an official motion made. So, you want to state it for the record? Yeah. I move that we accept the officer's recommendation of continuing this case until the August meeting. Yes. With you, fine. I'll say. Yeah, no fine or anything. No fine. Yeah, sorry. We have a second. I got it. Okay. Jan Koffer. Aye. Cliff Warren. Aye. Al Shamanzki. Aye. Aaron Dennis. Yes. Kathleen Brown. I. Michael Slyton. Yes. Ruth Kessmerik. Yes. Motion carries. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify a compliance with this order and also be aware that respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondents within five years of the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which I'll find out the $500 per day per day need to be imposed. Next case. The next case is 3144 Sundance Trail. She'll be front presenting. This is case number CCB 0385-2024. Properties located at 3144 Sundance Trail. This property is owned by our one single family residential. On May 9, 2024, co-compliance received a complaint regarding a house. In a boat dock, in this repair, also high grass and a fallen tree. On May 10, 2024, an inspection was conducted, and the property was found to be in violation of Section 26-914, Section 13, Outdoor Storage, Section 26-914, Section 4, Exterior Windows and Doors, Section 26-914, Section 6, Accessory Improvements, Section 26-914, section 8 landscaping, and section 26-914, section 9, trash and debris. On May 15, 2024, a notice of violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of May 29, 2024. A copy was also mailed, certified mailed to the property owner and was returned June 15th, 2024. On July 16th, a follow-up inspection show the property remains in violation of Section 26-914 Section 6 accessory improvements and Section 26-914 Section 8 landscaping. It staffs recommendation the board find Thomas Dross' NR Entity in violation of Section 26-914 Section 6 accessory improvements and Section 26-914 Section 8 landscaping and give until August 8, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, it's staff's recommendation to impose a fine at the August 15th, 2024 hearing. In the amount of $25 per violation per day until the property is brought into full compliance. I met with Mr. Dress on July 16th, I believe he's here today. And the accessory improvement is a boat dock that he's trying, I told him to bring some paperwork saying that he's on a list to get it repaired. And he needs to start moving forward with the permit. And then he did have a little bit more landscaping to complete. Would you like to speak, sir? You can just state your name for the record. Yeah, my name is Tom Dross, property owner 3144 Sundance Trail. And I'm just having difficulty finding a doc repair person to do the work on the doc. I had one a couple months ago, but he pulled out of the area. This is on Turnbull Bay. It's hard to get equipment into there. So currently I'm on a list at the local dock repair down the road on US one, but I don't have any particular dates that they can get to me or anything like that. So I can't really say how long it's going to take to do the repairs or with the amount it's going to be for that. So at this point you would have no idea from the the dock repair place. I called them again on last week, Friday and Billy I think is the owner over there and I'm still waiting for a call from him. But the lady that answers the phone, she did assure me that I'm still on the list and what it's been, it's actually been several months since I originally approached them after the other dock builder pulled out of the area. So other than that, and I'm still a truth, I'm not sure that, you know, that'll work out or not. That's just one repair place. So, you know, I'm still looking for an alternative in case that doesn't work out. I'm not sure the extent of the repairs that are going to be required or the amount of time it will take, but I'm just asking for some more time, I guess. Has the new company been out to look at it? No, no, I haven't even gotten a call back from them yet. But I did the prior company, Ken Anderson. I'm not sure what the name of the company is, but one of the neighbors took us out on a boat to go around the dock and take a look at it. And he thought that could could repair it, but then I think he had another job in another location He pulled out before he could come by so that and I didn't expect that to be a dead end. I thought that was gonna be it, you know because he was doing other work and in Turnbull Bay and I was hoping that would work out but it didn't so so it's my understanding on the doc repair that he would have to pull a permit for that correct yeah probably some drawings or some sort of paperwork would have to be done by this some drawings or some sort of paper work would have to be done by this to the city to approve all that Okay, but can you get the other stuff done exterior windows and doors outdoor storage landscaping He only has the two violations is just landscaping and then the exterior attachments, which is the the dock Yes, there's only two remaining. Right. Yeah, I think the landscaping is pretty much done. I just ran out of muscle power. Is there a thought to just completely take the dock out and start from scratch? If I have to do that, yeah, I don't know that it's at the head right now. Yeah, I know it. Well Ian, you know, the water came up so high and I didn't realize that the ox can float. So how long has it been damaged like this? To see in. And no one's come to give you a quote look. No permits, no nothing to repair. No, I had other issues going on. Because of the new house built next to me, I've had extensive flooding not in the house, but on the property. And that's what, I mean, I was at my whits and I couldn't even, I couldn't take any of the yard way, sorry, the trees that have fallen out to the road. But it's been dry for a few months now, so in a way, I need a little prompting, so it was actually a good thing. So, but no, with all the amount of work going on, you know, in the beginning, I didn't even try to find anybody because I knew there was a lot. So it had been a while after Ian probably late last year when I started, you know, because I knew there was dock builders in the area doing work. So that's when I contacted Ken Anderson. Any other questions from the board? Anybody like this in that emotion? I'd like to just continue the case for another month to see if there's that people that longed up out there. You're gonna continue with your cleaning out of your landscape, correct? Yeah, it's almost done. And get another guy, at least another guy that tried to get this dog straight away. Yeah, the dog almost almost done. Yeah, that's the dog builder. I mean, I would need to get a dog builder to give me an idea what it would take. And then that would end up getting a permit, right? So there's a little bit of a process that I have to go through first. But we would know that. We should report to us in another here in a month with a contractor up to get this. Look down or done you haven't even had anybody get a quote. I think the board's goal is to see you back here in a month with a contractor or somebody lined up who's going to come out there. Yeah that makes sense. Okay. So we had a motion and we just are looking for a second. I'll second. Dan Cofor. Aye. Cliff Warren. Aye. Elchemansky. Aye. Aaron Dennis. Yes. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Michael Slayton. Yes. Ruth Kessmerich. Yes. Motion carries. All right. Thank you. The respondents also further ordered to contract the code inspector to verify the compliance with this order and also be aware that the respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondent within five years of the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which a find up to $500 per day may be imposed. Next case. Our next case, your agenda says 405 dust street. It should read 405 north, dust street. Our vote will act presenting. This case is CED-0489-2024. The location of the property is 405 north, dust street. The property is zoned R3 single family residential. Violation cited is 26-171A permits required. On September 1st, 2023, while conducting inspections in the neighborhood, I had noticed this property that there had been an addition of a front cover porch, new windows and the new front door that had been installed on the property. there have been an addition of a front cover porch, new windows and the new front door that had been installed on the property. When returning to the office, I checked for permits and the permit was it issued after the owner received the courtesy notice from the Code Compliance Office. At that time, I closed the case because he had applied for the permit. On June 11th, 2024, a follow-up inspection on the posted on the property with an initial condit, I can't talk. To my state of June 25th, 2024, copy was also mailed certified mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on June 14th, 2024. On June 28th, 2024 review, the permitting system showed no inspections had been scheduled. I emailed Mr. Orange requesting he contact the building department as soon as possible to schedule the inspections. He responded on July 1st, 2024, stating the city approved the renewal of the permit and that he would be trying to get the inspections the next week. On July 17th, 2024, follow-up inspection of the permitting system showed no inspections had been scheduled. Is my recommendation the Board find James Orange and or entity in violation of section 26171A, given till August 8th, 2024, to bring the property into compliance. If the owner does not comply, it is staff's recommendation to impose a fine of $50 per day until the property is brought into full compliance, not to exceed $10,000. I do have an email from Mr. Orange that I would like to submit to you also you can see that he did respond however he still has not followed through. It's very simple all he has to do is go online, schedule the inspection and get it done. Any questions for Barbara? Just read what it says. And for the record, I believe he is some type of a contractor or in the construction world, so he knows how all this works. Any questions? I make a motion and what are you given for the day August August 8th? August 8th yeah I make a motion since he said he's supposed to be in the middle of it thank you August 8th and the recommendation and it's not fine $50 a day. I second. Thank you. Is it L? Yes. Thank you. Jan Koffer? Aye. Cliff Warren? Aye. Al Shamanski? Aye. Erin Dennis? Aye. Kathleen Brown? Aye. Michael Sighton? Yes. Ruth Kesneric? Yes. All right. Ruth Kesneric. Yes. Thank you everyone. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify a compliance with this order and also be aware that the respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondents within five years of the date of this order, shall be treated as a repeat violation of which I find up to $500 per day may be imposed. Our last case is $11.05 Washington Street. It has been withdrawn. Right. Oh, they fixed it. Any discussions among the board members? Just a quick note, will I would abstain if we vote it. Boo shaw island, I live in the community. You're gonna, it's weird because I'm vice president. I build the HOAs is CSA and their one entity and then the buildings are on your management companies. But this has been going on forever. So hopefully you'll get some answers with everyone's paperwork or I'll think yes, so The lawyer was right it's the most interesting case to ask Well, yeah, and it will be in everyone and then they say like they own our parking lot But then they want us to like paint that so it's it's a very gray area It's nothing black and white there and I love it It's a very gray area. It's nothing black and white there. And I love it there, I'm just saying. It's been a bit of a pain though. It's involved in a lawsuit. We really don't have any jurisdiction, is that correct? Well, you do.