Good morning. Good morning. Welcome to the July 2024 code enforcement board meeting. This meeting is an evidentiary hearing beginning at 830, followed by the consideration of lean release requests. The insertifications are heard by the special mattress shirt and a separate hearing. During this evidentiary session, we will hear testimony from the property owners and the city code compliance department about whether a property is in violation of city code. We will hear testimony from the city code's compliance department, even if a property owner who has received notice for this hearing fails to appear. A property owner who arrives late after his or her case has been called, heard, and decided by the board will not be, have the right to be heard. This hearing will be conducted as follows. The city so presented case first, after each witness has specified the property owner may through the chairperson of the board, cross examine or ask questions of the witness. When the city has presented all of its case, the property may present his or her case. An attorney or some other representative may represent you. You can present evidence in your defense either through witnesses or your own testimony. and your defense either through witnesses or your own testimony. If you present photographs or written documents as evidence, they must be submitted to the board's recording secretary for the case file. The city will be able to cross examine you and each of your witnesses. You have the right to remain silent, and your silence will not be held against you. You have the right to testify and have your testimony considered under the same standards of that of other witnesses. The board may ask questions of the witnesses on both sides as evidence is presented. This is not a criminal proceeding. Strict rules of evidence are not applied during the proceedings. After the board has heard all testimony from both sides, the board will enter a motion and may enter a close discussion at that time. During the close discussion amongst the board, no additional testimony from the city or the property owner may be heard. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented, the board will decide whether or not a violation exists and whether the violation has been corrected. If the board finds that there is a violation that has not been corrected, the board will order the property owner to correct a violation within the specific time will result in a fine for each day the property is not in compliance. After that period and compliance after that period. After the board has made its decision, they copied the board's finding and order will be mailed to the property owner of record. The correction of violations much occur before midnight of the deadline sent for compliance. If the corrections are not made by the deadline, the fine will be imposed for each day. Any uncorrected violation continues after the deadline. If after your case is heard, you wish to appeal your decision. You have 30 days to petition the circuit court of Pinellas County. Roll call please. Wilson, here. Schneider. Hensler. Here. Rooney. Wait. Here. Aseclis. Here. Ribblet. Here. All right, we're going to stand for the pledge. Those of you that are going to be tested by and please remain standing to be sworn in. Lightly in the city of Christ, the United States of America, and the Republic of Georgia stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please raise your hand. You swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You may be seated. Okay, before we start just a quick, please turn off your cell phones or silence those please. If you need to take a call, you step out on the hallway, just pay attention to the board so you know when your case is being called. Okay, first case please. Item 62, property owner, Kazary Capital Incorporated and Betty Waller, investigator, Jose Rodriguez. Good morning. I'm Jose Rodriguez, Co's investigative for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying the reference to item number 62. Case number 24, dash 7228, regarding property located at 1601 13th Street South. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a code's follow up case. The property was first inspected on April 24th of 2024 and the violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of May 18th of 2024. Property was last reinspected on July 15th, 2024 and the following violations still exist. The demo permit number 23 dash 06001355 has expired on March 11th of 24 without an approval file on inspection. And remove all junk trash and debris that remains after partial demolition of accessory structure. Zero out of two violations have been corrected since this case began. the city hall. Since certify mail was posted in the violation address on July 8th of 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership confirmed the county official records book 21012, page 1893. My last contact with the owner prior to today was on May 1st of 2024 and owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. page 1893. My last contact with the owner prior to today was on May 1st of 2024 and owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case are the permit again expired on March 11th of 24 without approving inspections. And the purpose of the demo, there was a tree from an abutting property that actually failed on their sexual structure and damaged it. So that's why they needed the demo for the top part of the accessory structure. I would like to enter the evidence exhibit number one photographs which are taken on July 15th of 24, document CBO71524228 JR and photos one through three. This first photograph is the elevation of the main structure. This is the accessory structure so this actually had a second part to it, a second story if you will. That's the part they got demoed. And right here, you can see the junk traction or breathe out left behind after the partial demo. It's just another close photograph of the items left behind after the partial demo. I would like to enter this fact sheet. And the evidence is exhibit number two in this conclusion. My presentation. Thank you. Good morning. Could you state your name and address for the record please? Good morning. My name is Duan right. 4125, 10,000. So thank you. I'm an F.U. of Betty Waller. My uncle is a state of address. What he said, a tree fell from the neighborhood and cracked it in half. And we called the owner to tell him that the city came through and speculated that it had had a repair. So what they did was they had somebody knock it down but they never come pick up the debris. But that's when we got the colon enforcement saying that we had to come down here or get it fixed. And then I called him. He never responded. Then I got in contact with the dude who knocked it down. You said, getting some time here, try to come door. We never showed up. So I'm trying to find a team to come pick up the debris on top of doing all other stuff because my uncle he can't come down here and and the health to do all this so but mr. Rodriguez been working with me on the situation so it's all good okay sir so we can give you some additional time much more time do you think you need to get it done like a meek I got most I say give me give me three months. I get it done so So the junk obviously But the permit So yes, so the the issue is the permit was it did expire without a final inspection So he definitely is gonna have to address that and then like he said just get all the items from the demo removed off the property Can he even do that if the he didn't pull the permit? That part may be challenging because he didn't do that. Mr. Wall may have to give you more details on that. Staff help me with this. Can you ask your question? I'm sorry. So who pulled the permit? I guess on this on this. I don't have that in front of me. I'm sorry. Do you pulled the permit I guess on this on this I don't have that in front of me. I'm sorry Do you know it's Paul Davis or cuz they're capital is his team his team pull yeah Fresh start development ink pulled the permit Okay, and they were somebody hired by Kizari capital this man So Kizari capital doesn't own the home. They own the home next door? No, they own our home. They own your home. Yes. Oh, I see. Was there a storm that came through? Or was his tree dead? And... It was after a hurricane. It was after a hurricane. It was during a... I was after. It was like two months after a hurricane, the tree was already coming and then it just fell over. Okay. Were you planning to rebuild that? So the plan was, they were going to rebuild the whole the whole structure and my uncle gave him money to start and they fell out the face of the earth right there you gave him money. I'm not sure who's the right person to ask about. Is the debris from the tree or is it from the demo? Is from the demo? Yeah, the debris is from the demo. From the demo? Yes. OK. I'll read something. You might. OK. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I moved that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Kazori Capitol Inc. to correct the violations within 90 days or by a date of October 22nd, 2024 if this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Second. Motion in second. Any questions questions? Okay roll call please. A secler? Yes. Hensler? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Riblet. Yes. Okay sir we've given you 90 days. I think you better focus in on that permit. That may take I think you better focus in on that permit. That may take about a while to get sorted. All right. Okay. Good luck with it. Thank you. Thank you. Next case. Item 149, property owner, Bay Living Center 2, LLC, investigator Tucker Hodges. Good morning. I'm Tucker Hodges, co- for the city of St. Petersburg. Test to find a reference item 149 case 24 dash 5020. Regarding property located at 5178th Street North. I was sworn in at the start of this meeting. There's a single family structure occupied by tenants. It's a C click fix case. Property is first inspected on 322, 2024. An evaluation of a sent-in owner with a compliance data for 24, 24. Excuse me, property is last reinspected. 722, 2024. And the following evaluation still exists. Affitizement rentals of a property for transient accommodations, occupancy, less than monthly term. It's prohibited within the neighborhood traditional single-family entity to zoning district. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice if hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall since certified mail. It was posted at the violation address on 710 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in a county official records book, T1, T2, T4. Page 0705 during the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. As of the relevant facts, there's a 724. This morning, a minimum stage shows 30 days and not available through the rest of the year. Like in entering the evidence, exhibit one, photographs or see the screenshots. Light, please. This is screenshot taken 617 which shows availability from 617 to 620. the I'm sorry. Here's a booking. Seven excuse me June 17 through the 20th. Like the notice faction evidence is the number two and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Did you state your name and address for the record please? Alexis Salby 28, 30, 48, sweet south, go for it. So I would like to state that, I actually, go on road, road, quick, yeah. We just need to get a relationship. I'm the property owner. I'm the owner of the LLC. Okay, thank you. So I would like to state that it's actually not a fact that I'm still operating as a short- tenancy. I actually, as of May 1st, listed it for long term tenancy and on June 3rd signed a lease for six months with tenants. So immediately when I got the notice, I immediately changed it to 30-day occupancy. And he's showing you that you can try to claim those dates. But if you were to actually go and book them, they would not go through. And so I would like to submit into evidence. I do have proof of the MLS listing on May 1st that I listed it for rent annually. And on June 3rd, I signed the lease for six months. So I have not been operating as a short-term tenancy since May 1st. Thank you. You're welcome. Do we have any questions? I have a question. It's the only investment property that you have currently. No How many more do you have in St. Pete? I have 25 but the apartment buildings but there's 25 total how many of them are short-term rentals? None. I used to they were short-term rentals before I have all since which every single one of them back over to long term tendency. I think my could pretty good entrepreneur. I'm sure you probably knew the municipal code before you did this for me. Correct. I actually did not. I was novice. I did not know. And honestly with the apartment building, so I think it allows for transient accommodations. But honestly, just didn't behoove me to keep them as their beanies. Once I found out about this, I did since transition all of them back Thank you you're welcome We have a motion I'll read something Based upon the evidence presented this case I move that the board issue the following findings of fact of conclusions of law The board finds that the violations of the same fe Feuders' Brigitte City Code is stated by the Coz Investigator if not been corrected. The board orders Bay Living Center to LLC to correct the violations within five days or by July 29th, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. We have a motion in second. Any other questions? No. Roll call, please. A have a motion in second. Any other questions? No. Roll call please. A sec, yes. Hensler. Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Riblay. Yes. Okay, ma'am. No, I have a question because they are corrected. I have a long-term tendency in place. Yes. You've corrected the violation. As of June 3rd. I'm not sure if it's a case. I'm not sure if it's a case. I'm not sure if it's a case. I'm not sure if it's a case. I'm not sure if it's a case. I'm not sure if it's a case. I'm not sure if it's a case. I'm not sure if it's a case. I'm not sure if it's a case. I'm not sure if it's a case. I'm going to go to the next case. Next case please. Item 128 property owner Don Bryant investigator Jose Rodriguez. I am Jose Rodriguez, co-investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying the reference to item number 128. Case number 24 dash 367 regarding property located at 281846 Avenue South. testifying the reference to item number 128. Case number 24 dash 367 regarding property located at 281846 Avenue South. I was wanting that this meeting. It's property of the single-family structure and is occupied by owner. Just the code's follow-up case. Property was first inspected on January 26 of 2024. The violation noted sent to the owner with the compliance date of February 22 of 2024. The property was last compliance date of February 22, of 2024. The property was last re-inspected on July 10, of 2024, and the following violation still exists. Roof is in disrepair. There's a tarp on the roof, which is indicative of roof disrepair, chip and pill and paint located on the exterior walls, and the fascia. Rodded damage will be located on the trim frame of garage door. One out of four violations have been corrected since this case began. Knows of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, since certified mail, hand delivered by myself on July 10th of 2024. Ownership is confirmed in county official records, book 21953, page 2294. My last contact with the owner prior to today was on July 10th of 2024. Owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance. There are no additional relevant facts regarding this case, And I would like to enter the evidence. The photographs which are taken on July 10th of 2024, document CBO71024367JR and photos 1 through 7. First photograph is of the elevation of the structure itself. And up there you can see the distance, but there's a tarp up there that's actually still on the roof. There's a closer picture so there's a tarp that still remains on top of the roof. It's one of the areas on face of chip and pill and paint. This is the framing around the garage door that needs to be repaired. It's in disrepair. More chip and pill and paint on the structure. This is the area of the structure that an owner's been working on repairing. This is part of the face that has been repaired. And again, another area, a section with chipping and pillow paint on the face. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Good morning. Can you state my name and address for the record please? My name is Dawn Bryant. The address is 2818 46th Avenue South. Okay. You've heard the testimony of the city. How much time do you feel? I am actually under contract with a rougher and I have some quotes from painters. I'm going to need, I'm asking for 183 days to get all of the work done 183 183 days. Okay. So can I can I explain to you so what happened my mother this is an inherited property. My mother got sick during the time I was down for a surgery. She died. So during that time while I was down for surgery, I ended up losing my job. So that's why I'm in this process now. Everything snowballed. So I'm gonna need more time to take care of. When you're taking care of. To sign the contract on the roof. I'm sorry. When do you expect to sign your contract on the roof? I need to contact them and get that taken care of within this week. Okay. And then the painting. The painting I actually have three quotes right now for a painter. Okay. I don't need it. Well, no, you don't need a permit to paint. A roof. A roof we need to permit. Yes. And so... Can I assume the contractor will apply for a permit of this? We need to permit. Yes. So. Yes. Contractor. So once you get that in place. So. Okay. Is it. Is it funds? It is. Yes. I'm. Okay. Okay. Okay. We'll give us some more. I'll read some. Based on the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Coz Investigator have not been corrected. The board orders dawn Bryant to correct the violations within 180 days or by January 20th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. A wave of motion. Second. Any questions? Okay. Roll call, please. A cyclist? No. Penciler? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. River? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Rivlay? Yes. Okay, ma'am. You've got 180 days. Okay. Good luck with that. Thank you. Next case. Item 171. Property owner. Milky LLC. investigator, Alexander Knight. Alexander Knight, codes investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying in reference to item 171, case number 24-4864. The property located at 30, 380, colony point road south. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single family structure and is vacant. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on April 25, 2024, and a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of May 26, 2024. The property was last reinspected on July 16, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Full present in rear yard of properties not being properly maintained with green, black, stagnant water. Notice of hearing was sent first. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall and sent certified mail. And was posted at the violation address on July 10, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County Official Records Book 22007, page 0510. During the course of my investigation, I've not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on July 16, 2024. Documents 07 1624 864, AJK, CEB and photo numbers 1 through 3. This is an elevation shot. Here you can see the green black stagnant water. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two. This concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Can you state your name and address for the record please good morning meki katana the address is 380 Colony point road south St Petersburg you living in that address no, no, I Living that's gonna be my future house when we finish where are you currently clear? You give us that after six for seven rust in road to water 3 3 7 6 5 Okay, thank you. So, um, this is your LLC? Correct. Mine and my wife, yes. Okay, that's cool. So you've heard the testimony, how long do you need to... The problem that I have in that place is that I don't have power because we are redoing everything. We put new meters and we are fighting with due energy to get power on site. That's the main problem. So the pump is not working. The last conversation that I had with them was yesterday, they are waiting, I don't know, really, by the way, we just moved the cable to put it on the ground. That's the only thing, from the moment they do that, I'm gonna remove all that water, clean everything, put everything back, and make it functional. So it's hard to say how long, because I don't know, I've been fighting with this. Yes. Can he cover that pool and spa? Would that work, or does it have to be cleaned out? What's the question, ma'am? Can you cover the pool and spa? Will that satisfy the violation? For it not being maintained? No, I mean, you know that would still probably allow mosquitoes and things to breed in there. I don't think there's any way you could get it completely. Yeah. When we purchased the property we had the same problem and I fixed that what we have and now it's back again because it's all disrained and all this problem and it's not maintained property. Was there an existing house and you've upgraded it or was it a vacant and you built it from the ground? No no no no no, no. It's the same house. We did an ad square feed, we just remune it. And did you have to pull a permit to bring in power to that property? We redo everything, rewire everything so we have a permit on place to do everything. And Duke hasn't given you any time this has been going on since April? It's not only that. I am Israeli. And with all that happened in Israel, I wasn't available to take care of this. I went back many times. So now I'm back about a month ago. And since I came back I'm taking care of that's my house. My wife is pushing finish that thing yesterday. So it's been a rough year for me. Okay, understood. Thank you. Sarah, I'm just curious what is the issue with Duke? Are you aware of what the delay is or what have they communicated to you? We put the underground thing, the disconnect to install it again. We paid all the fees, was like $4,000 and everything, and they are not connecting. And I don't know really why when I talk to them. Because based on the city, all the permits are in place and all the inspections went through all the rough inspection, everything. But there is something I don't know I'm going to be honest there is a documentation or something that I waiting to but till now we'll be waiting with the generator yeah and to be honest in the last three months there was no activity in the cars because I wasn't here and there was it's now it's coming back. Well, your other option, you could, you know, if you're still arguing with Duke, is to essentially have a generator and start, you could just get some pump out, cover it. Yes. My last resort. I'm, yes. That's my, I'm coming back to do that, yes. At least take all the water out, clean it up, and put in your water. Again, put in your water when you want to have a bump in seven days I have the same situation again. Let's try to cover the tarp. Just empty it, cover the tarp and then you're good. I had recommended not to leave a pool empty because this can create, yes. That's true. It's kind of going between. Have you contacted a pool company? Yes I did. It's beenampagne. We're gonna put also I'm in shock that to clean it up It's no worthy because it's such in bad condition. It's gonna be better to put I have already a pump on side Just remove everything to the seat and put you water. That's gonna be easier Well, what we can do is give you some time. I need I think that this is what I need I will let say 60 but I I'd let's see what we can come up with. Anyone have a motion? I'm not more interested to have this solved than you guys. I need this to be solved 100%. I'll read something. Based upon the evidence present in this case, I move that the board issued the following findings of fact of the conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the following findings of fact of conclusions of law. The Board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Coz Investigator have not been corrected. The Board orders Milky LLC to correct the violations within 25 days or by the date of August 18, 2024. If this order is not comply with a fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, maybe a motion second. Questions? 25, what? I think we need a little bit more time. What is Cassie White, dude? We can't have the power. I think any more time. Stay after this. This is prime breeding season from mosquitoes. I mean, obviously it's got to the point where the neighbors are complaining. Yeah. So this, this light's a farting that it's done. That was my thinking. Well, he can light Duke now. He's got 25 days. Yeah. Okay. Duke responds to Martin. Yeah. Okay. The problem is that he's trying to underground the power. Yeah. So the disconnect. Two-casted disconnect. Specialty drops. So the two-casted disconnects. And the power. I don't know why that's a problem. Oh. Yep. They put a disconnect. Okay. Okay. To vote. Yes. Yes. Hensler? Yes. Wait. Okay. To vote. Yes. Yes. Hensler. Yes. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Rivlay. No. Okay. Sir, you have 25 days. But if you don't get this solved in 25 days, you can come back to the magistrate hearing. You'll get another watch for another notice. And you can come back and the magistrate hearing, you'll get another watch for another notice, and you can come back and ask for additional time. All right, I'll try to handle that. It's tight, but I'll do my best. Well, good luck with it. Thank you very much. Okay, next case. Item 121, property owner Christopher Crawford, investigator Jean Medu. Good morning. I am Jean Medu. Fodes investigates for the City of St. Petersburg, testifyingie Payne, and reference to item number 121, case number 24 dash 5027 regarding property located at 1736, 27th Avenue North. I was sworn in at this start of this meeting. The property is a single family structure and it's occupied by tenants. This is a C-click fix case. The property was first inspected on April 20, 2024 and a violation noticed centered on with a compliance date of May 17, 2024. The property was last 2018-2024, and the following violation still exists. Advertisement and rental of a property for transient accommodations occupancy for less than a month later. Zero out of one violation have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall and sent certified mail. It was also posted at the violation address on 7-9-2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 193433 page 1280. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the owner prior to today was on 723, 2024. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day. They are after four noncompliance. and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case, as of 723-2024, we received a lease agreement which is dated from June 9th to 2024 to December 31st, 2024. I would like to enter into evidence as Exhibit 1 for the grounds which were taken on May 24, 2024, document SDR, photos May 24, 2024, AKR. So this here shows the calendar where June dates were available. This one shows that there This one shows that there were no minimum number of days required. You can have booked for two nights. This is the property in question. and then we have reviews. However, yesterday afternoon, around 3.30, I was able to go on to the Airbnb link. Look down from the top. Yes, so this is from yesterday afternoon at 3.14 pm where the link is still active and you can still go ahead and book for six nights. I would also like to answer this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two. This concludes my presentation. Okay. Thank you. Good morning. Could you state your name and address for the record please? Chris Crawford, 1736, 27th Avenue North. You live about that disc? I do not. It's been a long term rental for the last seven or eight years. I just renovated the, just could you give us your current rent? Oh, it's a 4-5-5-8 beach drive southeast. Thank you. Okay, go ahead, I'm sorry. It's just been a long term rental for a while. I just renovated and sort of short-term renting. My hired-to-property management companies have been, I've not really dealt with the tenants personally. I didn't realize this was a problem. I asked them to take it off. I didn't realize it was still active on Airbnb. I have a six-month lease with someone right now. And I was planning on selling it after the lease was up. So I honestly just realized, I didn't know until now that it was even still on Airbnb whatsoever. So. I have a question. You mentioned the lease, was that and executed by the property management company or by you as an individual with that tenant? The property management company. So they executed a six month lease for you, but they still allowed the Airbnb listing to be up. That doesn't sound like a very good property management company. It doesn't. I haven't looked. I was just aware it is even still up. I don't know why it would be if there's so many there for the next six months. Yeah, that'd be kind of weird if you lived in a house for a six-month lease and people showed up to stay sick. Be a surprise. Yeah, be like, sorry. So just kind of suspicious. Or just they just didn't bother taking it down. So yeah, we're lazy. Yeah, you have a motion. I'll read something. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Christopher Crawford to correct the violations within five days or by a date of July 29th, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion second. Any questions? Roll call please. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, okay, sir you've got five days I Recommend you get with the company or and get that taken down so you don't have to come back here all right sounds great. Thank you Next case item 142 property owner lake overlook association Incorporated investigator Timothy Howard Next case item 142 property owner Lake Overlook Association Incorporated investigator Timothy Howard I'm Timothy Howard codes investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, justifying in reference to item number 142, case number 246873, regarding property located at 4520, Overlook Drive Northeast. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a multi-family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on April 16, 2024, and a violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of May 11, 2024. The property was last inspected on July 17, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Paved common vehicular travel areas are in disrepair with numerous potholes. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall, sent certified mail and was posted at the violation address on July 12, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book, 03579, page 0485. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the owner prior to today was on July 18, 2024, and the owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photograph, which we're taking on July 17th, 2024, documents 072424CEB and photo numbers 1 through 3. So, here you can see a photo of some of the potholes that exist on the property and there are similar potholes throughout. Another photo showing the condition of the roads and the potholes throughout the property. And an elevation shot of the front of the property. I would like to enter this fact sheet and evidence as exhibit number two, and this concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Jamie Ballard. I am managing agent for Lake Overlook. I just wanted to start first because Elizabeth Fleming is here. She's on the board of directors, but she was not sworn in. We can she's going to speak. Yes. Yeah, we can do another. Sorry again. He's right here. Do you swear firm that the evidence you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay. Now give your name and address please for the record. My name is Elizabeth Fleming. I live at 4560 overlook drive northeast number 272. St. Petersburg 3-3-703. I can start, but I would. So anyway, I serve on the board, and I think this matter is highly confusing because the letter that I have here from the Code's Compliance Assistant Department is listed, it's June 5th. The first, and it's not sent to our current management association, we have had a transition. So we didn't even receive this letter. In the presentation, it was indicated that it was delivered in person. That's the first time we saw it in July. We have had several board meetings about the paving. We have since had, since this letter was delivered or sent June 5th, we had, I believe, nine areas patched. We are in a financial bind in our condominium at this time, it's shore acres. We had huge hikes in flood insurance, hazard insurance, and there wasn't enough in the reserves, and we're doing a reserve study, so we've had two special assessments recently. And I believe the citizen who reported this is one of the people complaining the most loudly about how it's so expensive and she can't afford it and so on and so forth. We have done the patching, which Jamie of our current management association will she has documentation and receipts and everything like that but we did that kind of as a stop gap and we have planned in our last few board meetings to set aside reserves to do full paving next year. And other than that, I would like Jamie to speak on this, but we don't have this money. So you can find us day after day, but we're really in a bind right now. That's what I can tell you. But we have planned for it. We know it's coming, but we thought we had taken care of the most serious issues. Thank you. So, ma'am, did you state your name and address for us if you're going to speak, please? Yes, thank you. It's Jamie Ballard, and I'm with Management and Associates 720, Brooker Creek Boulevard, Suite 206 Oldsmart, Florida 34677. Okay. We took on this property May 1st, so which was right in line with probably when the original letters were sent to the previous management company. That being said, on June 6th, the board was already preparing to fix the potholes in the area because of the resident complaints that were coming in, which they did. They contracted with a paving company. The paving company came out and fixed nine areas potholes. The board was made aware at that time by the paving company that they will have to mill and pave. There is only so much patching you can do. In between June 6th and today they've engaged four companies, they have three proposals that are coming in around $70,000 to do the mill and paving. As Elizabeth stated, they've already had two special assessments this year to cover their flood insurance hikes. And so we're working with them to try to go ahead and engage in financing to be able to complete this project. So they know it has to be done. They were planning on putting in the budget, which they start drafting now for 2025 to get the paving completed. That is there. So basically at this time, they just start going to need the additional time. Okay. Okay. Can to the delivery of notices what's the record address on record for this property? So the problem with this one is when the case has started each of those units are individually owned or condominiums. So it had like four different associations with each separate building, but then they defunct the ones and just had one that would. So in the property appraiser, it's not going to who they have now. So they need to change that with the property appraiser because we have to send notification to and also my suggestion is if they have a property management company to put an LPA form in. So the property management company will also get notice on anything else that happens at the condominium association. Absolutely. So that's you, your brief. So I have a question. So we have some questions here, go ahead. When were your pictures taken of the one pothole? July 17, 2024. So out of the nine that you have had patched was the picture. One included in that patching and has it been filled or saw cut it out and repaired. I have the map so I could not tell from the photo if that was one of the ones but I do have a map of the ones that were fixed, which are along that breeze way as you come through. So I'm not sure if the inspector would be able to determine better than me. I don't know. When we went out and did the inspection, some of it had been corrected. Those pictures that we took were after they did the patching. So do you think in your opinion you've addressed all what I call the rim busters and the ones that could potentially be a tripping hazard. From a safety standpoint, someone's walk across the street, they don't step on a whole break and ankle. Yes, at the time, but I will tell you that the Paving Company did advise that every time it rains, there are going to be new areas that open up because the milling has to be done. So the board understands that, I mean, as these come up, they're going to have to continue until they get the milling and paving done, spend the money to patch, you know, to be able to, you know, fill in these potholes until they have the money to pay. It's around $3,000 each time, but until they get that done, they realize the risk. So. Okay. Sorry until they get that done, they realize the risk. So. OK. I just had a unit. Sorry. In this place. Is it 100 units? How many units? 119 units. 119 units. I just had a question. Do you regularly get flooding? I'm assuming in your parking lot areas that are regular occurrence when there's a thunderstorm, if there's a big storm or is it no okay. Although we're in shore acres the lake overlook area where we are traditionally we have not. There have been two recent storms where we did have flooding, salt water come into the parking lot. It has knock on wood, let me not curse us. We have never had water go into the units, but the last, there have been two storms in the last couple of years. It flooded the entire neighborhood, but not our particular community. And it's been explained that that was like the rim of a bowl. And now with so many people building bigger, you know, knocking down houses, building higher and higher, you know, filling it in and building it up, we may not be the rim anymore. But up until now, I swear, I hope I'm not causing anything to happen. But I do want to say, from your presentation, the couple of shots that you had when there was, that was rainwater, that wasn't stormwater or flooding or anything like that, I noticed that. Why is it pooling on those areas that were fixed? But if you look at the picture of the wet one and the dry one, the dry one didn't look as bad. But obviously we have a problem. I think that paving has stood to test of time. We obviously need to do it and we are intending to do it. So we're just caught in a real bind right now. I'm no pothole expert, but I mean, I think you could find those all over the city. I was gonna say if you even go right outside in our neighborhood, there are everywhere. Okay. So obviously they need a permit, right, to do this repaving. If they do the entire, if they do the entire, the patching no I understand so but Okay So you want to read something okay Based on the evidence and this based on the evidence presented this case I moved at the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law the board finds that the violations of the same Petersberg city code as Stated by the code's investigative not been corrected the board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the code's investigative not been corrected The board orders lake overlook association incorporated to correct the violations within 180 days Or by the date of January 20th 2025 this order is not comply with they find if $200 per day shall be imposed Okay, we have a motion second any other questions Roll call please. No And sorry, yes, wait yes Wilson yes Riblay yes Okay, we've 180 days is what the board has given you one thing I want you to understand is that once you pull a permit, if you're going to repave, and you pull that permit, this puts this case on hold. So whether you start and get the paving company to pull a permit and can do sections of repaving versus just patching, that will keep this case on hold. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you all for your time. And get that address changed so that you can know. Absolutely, thank you so much. Thank you very much. X case, please. Item 120, property owner, our Lynn Zell, investigator Tucker Hodges. Good morning, I'm Tucker Hodges. Could investigate it for the city of St. Petersburg. Testifying a reference item 120, case 24-4370. Regarding property located at 2464, 32nd Avenue North, I was sworn at this meeting. It's a single family structure occupied by owner. So C-Click Fix Case, property is first inspected on 314-24 and the violation noted is sent to the owner with compliance data for 2324. Property is largely inspected 720, 24. And the following evaluations still exist. Living in RV is prohibited in residential area. One out of two violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall and sent certified mail and was posted the violation address on 7-11 2024 which is least 10 days prior to this hearing Ownership was confirming county official records book 221-7-9 page 0536 During of course my investigation my less contact with the owner prior to today was on 4 30 of 24 And owner did not indicate when the violation was be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Relative and fax RV is located in an unapproved location in the front yard and it's larger than ordinance allows. Like to enter into evidence exhibit one, photographs taken on 717 2024 document 071724370RTH So front elevation of the property and see the RV behind the fence here. It's too wide for the location and too long. I'd like to enter this fact sheet in evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation Okay, thank you. Just to clarify so as you saw in the photograph the RV was in front of the main structure So this is a house that sits further back on the lot the way that the ordinance is written that there cannot be any pieces of Domestic equipment in front of the principal structure and because of of how far it sits, the house sits back on the lot, there is no way to store that on an interior side yard or in the rear yard. So it can't be where it's at currently, and there is no feasible place to store the RV on the property that would be in compliance with the ordinance. And it's additionally larger than is allowed on the property. So normally anything over 35 feet in length and over 12 feet night is not allowed to be stored on a residential property. Can we see that photo again please Mr. Hodgents? Oh I see okay. Yeah so the main house it looked like it was on the side but I just the... There's the main house back here. I believe years ago there was a house in the front that was torn down and now they It looked like it was on the side, but it's just a... It is the main house back here. I believe years ago there was a house in the front that was torn down and now they have this. Thank you, sir. All right, thank you. Could you state your name and address for the record, please? Arland, Zell. 24, 64, 30 second out of the north. OK. So how much time do you think you need to have that? I can care. It just needs to be removed. Is that when these happen? Okay. I mean 30 days. I sure you find. Okay. All right. It's going to be easiest one of the day. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Arlen Zell to correct the violations within 30 days or by the date of August 23rd, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. That's second. I have motion second. Any questions, comments? He's reducing. Yeah, I'm going to occupy it. Sure. Will Crompley's. A checklist? Yes. Hands up? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Riblay? Yes. Hands are. Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Ripley. Yes. OK, sir, you've got 30 days. All right, thank you. Excuses. Item 176, property owner, Steven Greer, and Jane Willemesa, investigator, Zer of Melendez. Good morning. I am the right of Melendez. Go investigator for the city of San Petersburg testifying a reference to item 176 case number 24 7032 regarding properly located at 4616 22nd Avenue south was sworn in at the beginning of this meeting. This property is a single home and is occupied by tenants. This is a cyclophics case. The property was first inspected on April 23, 2024, and Valetian noticed it to the owner. We compliance day of May 23, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on July 9, 2024, and the following violations do exist. Avertisement and rental of a property for transient accommodation occupied for less than a month term is prohibited with the neighborhood traditional single family zoning district. Proof of cancellation of illegal future sure term rental booking will need to be supplies to the code enforcement department. Zero other one, violation of the correctness in this case begin. Notice appearing was sent for class mail posted a city hall, sent 35 mail and it was posted at the election address on July 9, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in the County official record book 22396, page 2406. My last contact with the owner prior to this hearing the Department of Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health and Health on the website. On my last review for this case was on July 19 and the website showed that there was a night, you know, you could book a night renter and also there was multiple reservation available to be done on the website. I would like to enter into everything. XCB1, CEPB pictures, document, CEP724, 24-032-ZM, photos 1-11, but I'm not going to show all of them. So this is the front elevation of the actual actual property. And this is one of the reservations that you could see from August 1st to August 2nd. This is December 11 the June reviews. And here we have five days review, one week review. We have another week review and there's another week and this was right after June. And this is September booking. And this is November booking from November 6 to the 12. And I would like to enter these packages into Avenue 2 and this will conclude my presentation. Okay, thank you. Can you state your name and address for the record? Yes, Steve Greer, 4616, 22nd Avenue, South. And Jane Wilmsay and 15 Tatters Del Laine, Grand Bidontaria. Okay, you heard the testimony in the city. You understand the violation? Yep. And yes, we have updated our reservations to 30 prior. We've listed it on other sites. It is currently still on Airbnb. However, if she was to select the reserve button, she would not be allowed to reserve under 30 days so we use that for our marketing and we cannot accept below 30 days we understand up through only three times a year and so that's what we are with that it is still listed though and she will be able to see it on there but far as booking it has to be 30 days. And as she could see, if she went on for October, it's book 30 days out of solid. So I have moved that to 30 days and I have listed on Florida rentals. I think that's where I can do it for a minimum of 30 days. That's the 30 day rental and Florida rentals speaking with, we've talked. Because we do want to comply. I have no issue with that. I think you understand that August rental would be in violation. That would be a 30 day rent. That'd be a 30 day rent. I guess my question is, is there anywhere in code saying that I can't use Airbnb platform as a, to achieve my minimum of three day rentals, or three short term rentals, is there anywhere? You've already exceeded that. Yes, and honestly, I didn't really even know about this till July. And on top of that, I mean, basically you're advertising your property for trains and accommodations as a hotel, which that's not the approved use. In a similar notion, if we had a business that was supposed to be selling clothes, but then they were advertising for food, and they were serving food out of there. I mean, it's the same thing we would require a change of use for something like that. So, you know- I guess I'm just asking for future. Like I understand for this year of exceeded that ZZ's made that very clear. I'm talking about the future. Is there anywhere in code scene for to achieve those three short term rentals? Can I use still use the Airbnb platform or do I have to use like Florida home? I think it's Florida rentals. I'm using it as my 30-day platform. So you could still utilize Airbnb with a 30-day minimum and a lot of times owners will make a note that indicates that they are allowed to book three terms and less than monthly within a one-year period and to contact the host for those availability. Now obviously- That's what we're working on right now with that. Yeah, I mean that is what we would consider compliant and then obviously whenever the 365 days is up next year from once you've cleared out, you would then be able to book three more, but to continue to have it listed for, you know, a two or three night minimum is an indication that that property is being utilized for the transit accommodations. Yes, and I understand that, and that's why we also are doing the other platforms to, from my understanding, AirBerry B is known for short term rentals. I do agree with that. So that's why I've kind of reached out to different platforms to get the 30-day rentals. I have a question. Is this the only rental property that you have currently in the city of St. Pete? Yes. I purchased this to my south move down here. I farm in Canada, so I can't move here yet. But that's my long-term plan was to move to this place. Thank you. We have a motion. I'll read. Based upon the evidence present in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City code is stated by the codesigator have not been corrected. The board orders, chain, excuse me, well, it's, it's, and Steven J. Grire to correct the violations within five days or a date of July 29th, 2024, if this order is not complied with, they find of $250 per day she'll be imposed. Second. We have a motion second. Any questions? Roll call please. Is that class? Yes. Hands are. Yes. Wait. Yes. Ripley? Yes. Okay, you've got five days. And then do we just, I guess we'll be in touch with CZ about that and just let her know all that stuff. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next case. Item 69, property owner Lisa Schweitzer and Myron Cone, investigator Monique Wadley, Coates Investigator for the City of St. Petersburg. I'm testifying and reference to item 69, case number 21, dash 1813. This is regarding property located at 3049, 7th Avenue North, and I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by the owner. This is an internal complaint case. The property was first inspected on January 29, 2021, and a violation notice sent to the owner with a complaint state of March 4, 2021. The property was last re-inspected on July 17, 2024. And a record check, again, this morning on July 24, 2024. And the following violations still exist. There is a fence installed without obtaining a certificate of appropriateness. There was a CPPC meeting on September 30th, 2021 with review of the COA for the construction of a covered rear porch in the front yard fence. So the covered rear porch had received an approved So the covered rear porch had received an approved exception based on some conditions and then the denial for the after the fact front yard fence. is there is an ARES Perman 21-04001533 to construct a new lini. It had received a disapproved final inspection in December 2, 2021, and the permit had expired. So they did get the permit reissued on June 12, 2024, but they received another disapproved final inspection on June 26, 2024, where the inspector notes for the disapproval says that they need to verify track attachment to house and specs only to allow 12 inches overhang on the panel. So zero out of two violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail. It was posted at City Hall. It was sent certified mail. And it was also posted at the violation address on July 10th 2024 which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records book 17953 page 0214. During the course of our investigation the last contact with the owner prior to today was on November 29, 2023, and the owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Then I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit one photographs which were taken on July 10th, 2024. And it's C-E-B-072424-813MW. This is showing the side of the fence. This is the front area of the property and part of the same defense. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two and this concludes my presentation. Okay. Can we get some more clarification? I'm not kind of following you with defense issue. So it's in a historic district and you need to have a certificate of appropriateness approved and it was denied. Okay. So they put the fence up without approval and it was denied on September 30th, 2021. It was denied in 2021. Okay, and so the fence has been up since then. Yes. And what permit was approved in June of 2024? So the Lennie was also part of the certificate of appropriateness for the historic that part got approved on conditions So they had to obtain the permit For that so then the permit had expired that was for the Lennie and it got expired They did renew it however that they had an inspection done again and it got denied again for the final inspection for the Lennie. What they need to do is fix whatever the problem is and have a final impact. And that will take care of the Lennie permit right. But then the fence issue issue it was denied. Was the permit for the fence denied or the appropriateness permit? The original. The original. Sorry for that confused. Okay. Yes. Fence needs that. That's never hot. Okay. That's never hot. Good morning. Can you state your name and address for the record? Or Lisa Schweitzer 30497th Avenue North. Okay. Or Lisa Schweitzer, 30497th Avenue North. Okay. The permit, the Lennon in the back, the engineer was just there, and they're submitting a letter today. And they'll need to do another inspection, but everything should be fine. Okay. He said he would need a month just between the letter and the doing the work. If there's work, but I don't think there's even work. And then with the fence, it was bored on board. And so I took off every other board. And I'm not sure what's wrong with the fence. The fence is a beautiful fence. And it's a really busy, dangerous corner. And I actually lost a dog in the corner. So I need a fence. OK. So do we know? Is she allowed to have offense their period or? Because she's in a historic district the installation of offense requires a CoA certificate of appropriateness so She would be in violation until she gets that certificate of appropriateness or she removes defense and who does she speak to for that? historic preservation, but and I have tried to call I can't get in touch with anyone I don't know what to do. I mean from what I understand from Miss Wiley's presentation. It's already been Before the committee planning preservation commission they denied Defense so they denied the current the current fence. That's up It's my understanding and it wasn't clear that I needed I looked online It wasn't clear that I needed their permission before and then I paid after the fact to have the fence but they denied the fence and I think they denied it because it was bored on board and they wanted to see through. It sounds like that type of fence is not appropriate for a historical. It's just a wood fence. I understand but they probably have their... They said what they had said to me the first time was that it was board on board, so they wanted to see through it. So I took off every other one, and then I think it was an inch to tall. Well, ma'am, I, I, how he encouraged you to continue to try to get in front of somebody, and maybe I don't know if the city can help with that, but yeah, we can certainly, I need help with that but yeah we can certainly. I need help. I have to. Historic preservation provide contact information and try to help facilitate that. I appreciate it. I would appreciate it. Let's see if we can give you some time to get rectified. Yes. I'll read something. Based upon the evidence presented in this case I moved that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code, is stated by the code's investigator, have not been corrected. The board orders Lisa Schweitzer In Myron Cone to correct the violation Within 120 days or by a date of November 21st 2024 if this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day shall be imposed Okay, we have a motion be imposed. Second. Okay. We have a motion set. Any questions? Give her some time. That's been since 21. I know, but they're not moving quick. If he has to go back to the beginning of his reservation for a approval after a specific year time, what it is they want. You have to come out and inspect and look. I get it. I get it. My feeling is nothing's happening in three years. I'm just one. Okay, let's have a roll call, please. A sec, please. Yes. Hands up. No. Wait. No. Wilson. Yes. Penciler? No. Wait? No. Wilson? Yes. Riblay? Oh, yes. Okay, man. You've got 120 days. I recommend you take this time to rectify this. I'm not sure what to do with the fence. I don't know what to do. It really sounds to me that it's the preservation society needs to give you your options for what this fence needs to look like. And I've truly haven't been able to get in touch with anyone. I'm not sure if you can get a call. I'm not sure if you can get a call. I'm not sure if you can get a call. I'm not sure if you can get a call. I'm not sure if you can get a call. I'm not sure if you can get a call. I'm you. Thank you. Okay next case please. Item 118 property owner Donald's Durgier investigator Tucker Hodges. Good morning I'm Tucker Hodges co-investigator for the city of St. Petersburg. Testifying a reference item 118, case 24-1819. Regarding property located at 4077-3670 North, I was sworn in at this meeting. It's a single family structure occupied by owner. This is a code's follow-up case property first inspected on February 5th, 2024, and the violation noticed that today owner with a compliance date of 325-24. Properties last week. Inspector on 720-24, and following the violation still exists. Areas in the radio yard have trash and debris throughout loose trash, and various containers. Front door and surrounding trim are in disrepair with areas of rot. Grass vegetation trees need to be trimmed in a rear yard, properly maintained. A mold of mill do on sides of property needs to be removed. One out of five violations been corrected since the case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, POTESET City Hall and sent certified mail. POTESET the violation address on 7-11-24, which is at least 10 days prior to his hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records book 05191055. Not any contact with the owner. Department recommends 25 days and 150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Like the interim evidence exhibit one photographs which were taken on 717 2024 excuse me these pictures were actually taken February 6 I had some technical difficulties with these later photos here's a view of the rear yard the overgrowth and and three. Front door you can see the plate that's routed here and there's some trim around the door. It's in disrepair. This trash has been removed in the front yard, but there door trims in the district. I mean, like the satisfaction in the evidence is exhibit number two. This includes my presentation. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. You state your name and address for the record please. Jenny Steger 407736 Avenue North St. Pete 3713. So you live at this address. I do. And the relationship to Donald. My my my deceased husband. Thank you. So you heard the testimony. Yes, um, those pictures, those are old pictures. We like we did that whole front yard, me and my son. And the backyard that the picture he took was when my fence was down and we put the new fence on, but we haven't really worked in the backyard because we work so much. So I just try to keep the front yard done is just me and my son. And on the door, I just need some time to fix that. I'm not, we don't have funds right now, so we just have to figure out how we're gonna do it. How much time do you think you need, ma'am? Right, three months. Okay. We can, in the neighborhood, in the end team, in their purview. You didn't send me anything. I was not the backyard, able to get the vaccine. I'm not going to be able to get the vaccine. I'm not going to be able to get the vaccine. I'm not going to be able to get the vaccine. I'm not going to be able to get the vaccine. I'm not going to be able to get the vaccine. I'm not going to be able to get the vaccine. I'm not going to be able to get the vaccine. I'm not going to be the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigation have not been corrected. The board orders, Donald's, steeger, estate to correct the violations within 90 days or by the date of October 22nd, 2024. If the sort is not complied with, a fine of $100 per day shall be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion second. Any other questions? Roll call please. A secness? Yes. Hands on it? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Yes. Okay, ma'am, you've got 90 days. Maybe the city can see if the end team, which is a support from the city, Thank you very much. Thank you. Oh. Next case. Item 156 property owner 717. Dartmore Street North. Investigator Tucker Hodges. More than Tucker Hodges could investigate it for the city of St. Petersburg, test and fan and reference item 156 case 24 dash 5018. This regard is a very Good morning, I'm Tucker Hodge. I just couldn't investigate it for the City of St. Petersburg, Test and Fan, and reference to item 156, case 24, that is 5018. This regarding property located at 717, Darkmore Street, North. I was sworn in at this meeting. Property is a multi-family structure occupied by tenants. It's a C-Click fix case. Property is first inspected on 322, 24, with a, excuse me, the violation noticed on the owner with the compliance date of 5, 17, 24. Properly as last we inspected 7, 23, 2024, and the following evaluation still exists. Effortizement and rental of a property for transient accommodations, occupancy for less than monthly term, is prohibited within neighborhood traditional single family in T4's own industry. Zero out of one violation has been corrected since this case began. Notice if hearing was sent first class mail, post at City Hall. Since certify mail was posted to violation address on 710, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to his hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records book 21391, page 2087. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts as of 6.7.24. I was able to book for less than 30 days. I'd like to enter an event, excuse me, enter into evidence, exhibit one some screenshots. This is the opening page you get on Airbnb. We're able to book from 613 to 620 at that time. Here's our reservation, 613, 620. I have some reviews from April. I like the fact sheet and the evidence is the Z evidence is it number two and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you Good morning. Can you state your names and address it for the morning? My name is Samantha Crawford I am the property manager here to represent the owner of 717 Dartmouth Street North to LLC Our mailing address is eight Indian Ola Avenue, Akra, New York, 1-4001. The owners don't live here, and we actually went to Miss Lakatos, who's standing beside me. And so we have a lease agreement with her. She didn't realize she wasn't allowed to air B&B. So she's in violation of her lease. She's been served from us, given an opportunity to cure. She told me it was removed in May. So that's where we're at. And I'm going to let her speak as far as the air B&B goes. As of today, everything should be completely... You need to name and address. Oh, yeah. Sherry Lachatos, 717, Dartmore Street North, St. Petersburg, 33701. So you live at this property? Yes. And what do you do? You go away for a weekend and you live at it? Yes. Okay. So everything should be permanently deactivated. The house will not be, as she said, I no longer have any, I can't list it on anything. So you're going to take the listing down. The listing should be deactivated on all, I will check again today, but yes. Sometimes it does come back up if you don't click the permanent but yes it will be permanently terminated. Are there any future bookings that you're still going to move forward with? No. Okay. I definitely don't want to become an internet detective here but when he showed up the photo of one of those screenshots it said lived in Asheville North Carolina for the host of that property. That's my daughter. She was hosting it. Oh, okay. So she was doing like the online portion of it, even though you were actually living in the location. Yes. Okay. It was when I was out of town. So yes. Okay. We have a motion. Go ahead. No. Go ahead. No, go ahead. Based upon the evidence presented this case, I move that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Coves Investigator, not been corrected. The board orders 717, Dartmouth Street, North. This two LLC to correct the violations within five days or by the date of July 29th, 2024, if this order is not complied with, a fine of $250 per day shall be imposed. Second. We have a motion second. Roll call please. A checklist? Yes. Hands are? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Yes. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Yes. Okay. You said you've corrected it, but you have- I'll go back on today. Yeah, because, yeah, sometimes it, yeah. I'll make sure everything's terminated today. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Next case. Item 145, Property Owner, Darrell Brandemore, investigator, Timothy Howard. I'm Timothy Howard, codes investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying in reference to item number 145, number 2 3 205 8 7 Regarding property located at 1 2 9 36th Avenue Northeast. I was sworn in at this meeting The property is a single family structure and is vacant. This is a code's initiated case The property was first inspected on November 7, 2023 and a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of April 7, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on July 19, 2024, and the following violations still exists. A permit is required for the enclosure of a window and or rear alterations. Permits also required for removal of car port slash rear accessory structure. Six out of seven violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall sent certified mail and was posted at the violation address on July 12, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County Official Records book 22606, page 1071. During the course of our investigation, the department's last contact with the owner prior to today was on April 8, 2024, and the owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case are that in ARES permit 2405000431 is in process and corrections have been routed for review as of June 25th, 2024. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on November 7th, 2023 and July 17th, 2024 documents 072424CEB and photo numbers 1 through 6. This is an elevation shot of the front of the property from the street. This is the rear of the structure as it is currently. There was previously a car port attached here. Another photo of the rear of the structure as it stands currently. There was previously a window here that was enclosed. This is a previous photo of the property. You see where that window wasn't closed that used to exist there. This is the car port that used to stand at the rear of the structure that is no longer there. And just another shot of the rear of the structure as it previously stood. I would like to enter this fact sheets into evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation Okay, so you said six out of seven So what is the last one that needs to be corrected just permitting for the enclosure of the window and the removal of the carport The carport as well And the carport correct and Okay, you need a permit to read he didn't repeat it and have a permit to remove that. Correct. Also, you said it was returned for corrections. Maybe for correct. Is that on the curb or on the window? Yes, routed for review as of June 25th, 2024. So he made some corrections and now it's going through the process again. I'm just trying to understand where we are. Is building permits waiting for him or is he waiting for them? I believe building is waiting on him for the corrections to be made and resubmitted to them. Correct. Now the first picture that you showed, it was just the accessory structure with the car port. That wasn't the same picture where the car port where you showed a car port. I think it was taken down. Yeah, it took after the same spot. The car port was been removed. Okay. And I just want to let you know that he had they have resubmitted so so it was ready for corrections on May 13th and then the corrections have been put in as of June 25th and they're in in review for for the corrections. Okay. sir, can you state your name and address for the record? Darrell Brandemore, 3701, 18th Avenue, North. St. Petersburg, 33713. Okay, thank you. Yeah, and to summarize it and bring it up, yes, we had, there were numerous code violations from the previous owner when we bought the house. One of those nice things you inherit, you find out later that you inherit a lot of problems. So we got everything corrected. If we zoomed in on the one cardboard picture, you'll see the cardboard was rotted. Two foundations were broken and it was pulling off the back of the house. So I called the building department to say, I have this cardboard that's starting to damage this utility room that's attached to what do I need to do and they said, are you changing the use? No. Are you creating an opening? No. Are you going to replace a carport? No. It's an open-air carport. I want to get rid of it. You don't need a permit for that. And I took it down. I also enclosed a window and I didn't ask about that one because I didn't really thought I needed a permit to enclose a window. I stayed within the existing structure. There was no fortification needed. I did that. Well then when the inspector came out and I have not met this gentleman. This is my third inspector. It was Greg Foster who came out and said, yeah you're going to need an inspection for that. I called the city. They said, again, I don't think you do. And I said, well, I'm coming down to pull a permit anyway. I pulled the permit. I met with Peter Burke. Peter said, I got it. You called me down 10 days later. You have a lot of verbiage I don't like. And you need to show this and your plan needs to show that. I went on vacation unfortunately for two weeks right after that. I came back, made all the corrections submitted it. It's sitting in the building department right now since 625. So I'm just waiting. I call every three to four days and they're like, it's not out of building yet, but it's out of zoning and out of plan review. So should be issuing that permit any day. My hope is the inspector comes out and says, yeah, it's gone. You did that. You did that. I gave him a bunch of detail on the permit as to what we did. So I'm hoping it's logistics at this point in time. Time wise, I mean, I'd love to say 30 days. I want it done and over with, but I don't know the backlog. Nor do I know what the inspector might say, which is, can to tear off a piece of that and show me what's, I mean, I'm hoping they don't do that, but I mean, I'd stand ready to do it if they want to do that, but that could take a little bit longer. So I don't even know what to ask on time. I was hoping this would all be done by now. So does your, what do you submit it to the city? Does that also address the car port that you took down as well. So it's windows and the car port. It only addresses car port and window issue. Correct. Which of the two outstanding? Okay. Yep. So what are your plans for this home? To live in it. I'll read. I'll roll. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I moved at the board issue to following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Codes of Investigative not been corrected. The board orders Darrell Brandymor and Kimberly Brandymor to correct the violations within 60 days or by the date of September 22nd, 2024, if this order is not complied with a fine of a hundred dollars per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Any more motion second? Any questions? Roll call please. A sec, please? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Riblet. Yes. Okay, sir. So you have 60 days. Once you get the permit issue that puts this case. Yeah. Yeah Good luck with it. Thank you Next case Yeah, I said we'll go one more. Oh, everybody. She needs it. Okay, hold on a second. You want to, you want to wait? Okay, we're going to take a short 10 minute break. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sure it's a the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to the studio. I'm gonna go back to Baby tell me the truth I I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I'm gonna go back to the first one. I baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby you and and and and music I'm going to be a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. I'm going to make a little bit of the color. . Let's go. and I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. and I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . the I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do it on the top of the head. I'm going to put it on the top of the head. I'm going to put it on the top of the head. you . you you you you Okay. A concession here next case. Item 64, property owner Sharon Sherrod, investigator Jose Rodriguez. I'm Jose Rodriguez, co-investigated for the City of St. Petersburg. Testifying the reference to item number 64. Case number 24, dash 3928, regarding property located at 175517 Street South. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a C-click fix case. The property was first inspected on March 18th of 2024 and the violation noted since the owner with a compliance date of April 10th of 2024. Property was last reinspected on July 16th of 2024 and the following violations still exist. Avertisement and rental of a property for transient accommodations, occupancy, for less than a month term, is prohibited within the neighborhood traditional zoning district. Zero out of one violations have been created since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, since certified mail, delivered by certified mail, was posted at a violation address on July 9th of 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County Official Records book 19501, page 0359. My last contact with the owner prior to today was on May 7th of 2024, and owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance. This and the relevant facts regarding this case are there was a previous case for short term rental in July of 2022. I would like to enter to evidence exhibit number one, photographs which are taken on July 15th of 2024, as well as screenshots, document CBO71524928JR, and images one through seven. So this first one is some of the reviews for the property, but this was actually the screenshot from March 18th. This is a picture or view of the landing page on Airbnb. Again, some more some more reviews. This screenshot is from July 19th. So there are reviews from May, April here. April again, April, and then March and March. And then March of 24 is actually one of the cases we got. This screenshot taken in June shows that you were able to book a minimum of two nights right here. Again this was done in June. And again a screenshot showing that July 11th through 13th way able to be booked. In this elevation of the property just to compare that's what's online. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you. Good morning. You may name and address for the record please. Sharon Shiraugh, 940, Breel and Drive, Tampa, Florida, 336 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 I'm not a copy of it, Dad. I was in compliance. So as we've discussed with these cases previously, the violation notice was issued back in March, and this is actually the second time that this property has been cited, I think, under this same ownership of a cited back in 2022. So the owner should be well aware of what the ordinance requirements are. From the time that we issued the violation notice, there was additional reviews that occurred and then as Mr. Rodriguez showed, as recently as a couple of weeks ago in June, which is well after the compliance date, after receiving notice of this hearing, the property was still available for a two-night minimum. So obviously, as soon as this owner or any other owner left this room, they could switch it right back to being less than a monthly term. So our position from the city standpoint is the fact that there's been reviews after the compliance date. The property was available after the compliance date and while now currently in this moment, they might show a 30 day minimum. They have exceeded their allowable rentals of more than three. And again, just understanding how easy it is to go right back to being out of compliance from an advertisement standpoint. That's why the case is before you today. May I speak now? Excuse me. Mr. Rodriguez. Yes. How many units are here? How many? I know it's a main house and it looks like an accessory structure in the back the overall units I have no idea By looking at it, I am going to assume three, but I honestly couldn't tell you at this time How many units are in there ma'am? It's one main house one main house and it's three bedroom is too bad. Man. I'm sorry. The structure in the back? No, those are apartments. Are you leasing this out in a short-term realm? No. No. Full-time tenants and? Yes. May I speak to the two times of being cited? I was cited. And Mr. David Fenton, I have an email form here. And he indicated, anytime on Airbnb when it's time for you to do the three times just call in. Let someone know in code hey I'm gonna book or let somebody book three times okay I did that I did that I also came down to the code and say how do I do it when my family members come in how do I book that. I also came down to the code and say, how do I do it when my family members come in? How do I book it then? I was told to just let them come on. I've called Jose. I've talked to him. I've talked to Tim. I've talked to Carrie. I followed the rules that was given to me, a habit in writing. I'm not disobeying. I'm not disobeying. I'm not disobeying. I'm not disobeying. I'm not disobeying. I'm not disobeying. I'm not disobeying. I'm not disobeying. I'm not disobeying. I'm not disobeying. I'm not disobeying. I'm not disobeying. I'm not disobeying. I'm not disobeying. I'm not disobeying. I'm not disobeying. I'm not disobeying. I'm not May and June. I've had to return money because the roads are flooded out. And I guess they didn't take the time to try to look and see the alert of the address they just purchased. So they come and they say, well, it's not safe. So I have to return money. And have to return money is a strong one to keep them from posting a review to say, so I'm almost buying my review. Now, when you look at that, this housing area, and it says, Oh, it's the best thing. It's the best thing in the world. Stevie Wonder can see. It's not. It is. Hey, man, but that's not the issue here. So, um, well, maybe can you just state what the, it's the code is for this? Yep, so everyone's clear. Yep, so trains accommodations, which is rentals for less than a monthly term are prohibited with the exception that three times within a 365 day period you can have short term rentals. So the maximum that you could run out your property with different tenants would be 14. You could capture 11 monthly rentals and then three short-term rentals. So 14 within any 365-day period. So just with this property specifically to respond to the fact that they were in compliance previously, I referenced it was a 2022 violation notice and that she would contact, she indicated she would contact us if there were other people, when she was capturing her stays. There were 19 reviews on Airbnb for 2023. That's outside of the 14 that would be permitted. There's already been 10 reviews in 2024. And again, as the screenshot showed, a two day booking that we would have been able to do back in June. Okay. I can't stop you from booking it. I'm sorry, I can't stop you from searching it, but we can stop you from booking it. So it wasn't booked. The only way that you can leave reviews on Airbnb and this is right on their website, I can read a verbatim if you would like me to, is if you are a confirmed guest at the property. That's true. But there is no difference in family and regular. Please educate me on that, because I have called in, and I have spoke to code individuals, and I was told there is a difference. So please educate me. So I mean, I think if I was staying at a family's property, I wouldn't book it through Airbnb. I would just show up and stay at their house. But that's what you want. You want somebody to stay and give a good review. You want to do that. And you might want to have your family do that. That helps the area. It helps me. Right. So I wasn't going against your rule. I'm just telling you what I thought was a good idea, evidently not a good idea. But also... Man, when you say it helps you, how does it help you to have your family give a review on a short-term rental site when you're not supposed to be doing short-term rentals? Because I was told my family members could come and... Well, my family members come all the time, but I don't make them put reviews on a website that I don't have my property listed on. And that said again, I was told it was okay. It didn't matter if they stayed one day, two day, fifteen days, a whole year. So thereby what I'm seeing, I was under that impression. We are military family. So we have a lot of family and friends that come in. Well, it still doesn't make sense to me either why you need to post it on Airbnb. Are they staying there for free? What happens? We also yeah. And what happens? Yeah. And what happens is you get better rating and then it's advertised. What reason would you need better rating on Airbnb? You cannot do short-term rentals in the city of St. Petersburg. Airbnb do long-term. I've had long-term rentals. I always, you get short or long-term. So it isn't simply a short-term. And then I don't change my pricing. I give a military discount, but it's not like, or if you stay short-term is $1, but if you stay long-term, it's only $1 or 50 cents, it's not that way. She's doing it to bolster her marketing, and so it shows the number of reviews you have along with the ratings and they do an average on it. So it's a way to manipulate the system and have family members write good stuff. Whether we like it or not, I mean, so I think that I think what we're trying to tell you is, you know, we're not going to dig in and understand where this, we don't know where this family staying there are not. Right. So that's not, that's, I understand, but that that's not you know, that's not the city's responsibility So you're allowed X number you're allowed what mr. Was said in terms of what short-term rentals are permissible or not And I would say you need to figure out how you want to manage that so you can stay in compliance because we're gonna Use the data we have in the analytics we have and we're not gonna understand who your family members are staying there Not so I would just would just suggest you do something different, whether it's them not posting reviews, so you can bolster your ratings or not. Maybe that's the solution, but that's not for us to decide what the solution is. Our ours is to tell you what the rules are and to make sure that you understand that when you leave here and hopefully you follow it in our compliance. Okay. And it sounds like he's charging those friends and families to stay there. So it doesn't really matter. And that's a short term rental. Yep. You're still doing short term rentals. Yep. Stop. You asked me did they pay? And I said, no. No, I thought you said yes. No, I said no. Okay. All right, man, let's see. We're going to give you some time to rectify. Okay. All right, man, let's see, we're gonna give you some time to rectify the- Okay. I'll read. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, the board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Cozum Investigative Not been corrected. The board orders Sharon Shorod to correct the violations within five days or a date of July 29th, 2024. If this order's not comply with a fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have motion in a second. Any other questions, comments? Rhoq Hall, please. No, cyclists? Yes. Ends or? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Yes. Five, five. Rebleu. Yes. Five. Okay. So, ma'am, you got five days to comply. Okay. I suggest you stay in touch with your golden specter if you have any questions. Okay. Thank you. Next case. Item 61 property owner Andrew Hitchcock investigator has a Rodriguez. Hi. I'm Hosea Rodriguez Coals, investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying the reference to item number 61. Case number 24- dash 7211, regarding property located at 9509th Avenue South. I was wanting that as a meeting. It's a property of the single family structure that's occupied by owner. This is the citizen complaint case. Property was first inspected on April 24th or 2024. The violation noted since it owner with the compliance data made 10th of 2024. Property was last reinspected on July 15th of 2024. And the following violations still exist. Removing our property store all junk trash and debris or outdoor storage. One out of two violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at city hall, censored a five mail, and was posted at the violation address on July 8th of 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 14444, page 1029. Our last contact with the owner prior to the date was on April 24th of 2024, and owner did not indicate when the violation would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance. There are no additional relevant facts regarding this case and I would like to exhibit, excuse me, into evidence. Exhibit number one photographs which are taken on July 15th of 24, document CBO71524211JR and photos one through 4. First photograph is the elevation of the structure. So photograph of some of the items he has stored around the property. So it's the front part of the property. The photo of the rear of the property, some of the items he has stored in the rear of the property. And again, another photograph of the rear of the property. I am that he has stored just from a different angle. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence, exhibit number two. Just concludes my presentation. Thank you. Can you state your name and address for the record? My name is Joseph Springer. My address is 4608 Grace Street North St. Petersburg, Florida. I'm an attorney for Bank of America on a local council appearance. Mr. Hitchcock's deceased and Bank of America is initiated a foreclosure action on May 9th. And so... We would need a representative of the owner because Bank of America doesn't currently own the property We can't hear from Bank of America under our procedures Okay, I have an authorized representative of the current ownership of the property Property Fraser, okay. I'm sorry. I'm not sure if I made it clear. He's deceased, right? So I guess maybe that would be his author right his What do you call it executor effectively right? I For closing on the property until they were they owned the property Perthian for closure so what would happen if no representation was here today is the property owner would get their Code departments recommended amount of time do you know that? the department's recommended amount of time. Do you know that he had relatives or is the bank in? I know everything I've said is I have told you everything I know. Okay. So we're stuck to be able to hear this case. Yeah, so we can't. We can't hear this case. So what is to happen next then? Either you need to get authorization from whoever is the executor or the foreclosure proceeding has to go through and Bank of America has to on the property. Okay well the bank the foreclosure has already been filed so I'm sure it will. This case will be written will be read in as Recommendation recommendation was 25 100 so that's what will happen is it'll be red in and the fines will start occurring August 8th. Yeah, August so August 18th. Okay. So if you could, again, I think if you can get a whole of somebody by then and maybe discuss that with the city, but that's what the process will be right now. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yep. What your other option is just get the problem resolved. Well, but as owner, as bank, as we don't know the properties, Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Next case please. Item 113, property owner Christopher Martinez, investigator Tucker Hodges. Morning, I'm Tucker Hodges, good and best. Good and best get it for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference to item 113. Case 24-6618, this regarding property located 37, 7, 6, 23rd Avenue North. I was sworn in at this meeting. Property to single family structure and is vacant. So you see clicked fix case. Property is first inspected on 417, 2024 in a violation. Notice sent to the owner of the compliance date of 524, 2024. Property is last reinpected, 722, 2024. And the following evaluations exist. for the year of the year. The year of the year have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing with first class mail posted at City Hall, sent certified mail and was posted at violation address on 7-11, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 2246, page 122424 during the course of my investigation I have not had any contact with the owner the department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance this one relevant facts June and July bookings for less than monthly were available but as of July 23rd, there's no longer listed on Airbnb. Like then, in the evidence, Exhibit 1, some screenshots, taking in May and June. Here's a landing page for Airbnb. And April is available for this rental May 22nd. may after the client state was available June 30 to the fifth. There was a calendar for April and May shown it was open. No, men one. I don't know if it's actually in the evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Mr. Evans, you said it's no longer listed as a... Correct, I checked Airbnb and nothing came up with the link that we have. Okay. Thank you. Hi. Good morning. Can you state your name and address for the record, please? Crystal from Martinez, 1-0, A-0, 9-North-Leo Street, Tampa, Florida, 3-3-6-1-2. Okay. So you understand the violation? Yes. I already removed the listing and I already have an annual tenant for the property. Great. Great. and I already have an annual tenant for the property. Great, great. We have motion. I'll make a motion. Just a quick question. Oh, I'm sorry. Do you have other properties in St. Pete? I'm in St. Pete, I do. Any of those short-term rentals? No, they're all long-term. Okay. Ready? Yeah. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Christopher Martinez to correct the violations within five days or by a date of July 29th, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Hey, we have a motion. Second questions. Real, please. Well, cyclists. Yes, pencil. Yes, we. Yes, Wilson. Yes, riblay. Yes. Okay. Thank. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next case. Item 123, property owner Rahim Kapadia and Ramzan Kapadia, investigator, Jean Medu. I am Jean Medu, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number one, two, three, case number 23-20599, regarding property located at 1344, 14th Street Note. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a multi-family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a code-initiated case. The property was first inspected on November 8, 2023, and a violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of December 1, 2023. The property was last reinspected on July 22, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Advertisement and rental of a property for transient accommodations occupancy for less and a monthly term is prohibited within the neighborhood traditional single family and T2 zoning district. Zero out of one violation have been corrected since this case began. Notice of Heron was sent first class mail posted at City Hall sent 35 mail and posted at the violation address on 7 9 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 22001, page 0599. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit one, photographs which were taken on June SDR June 7, 2024 AKR. So this shows that there are available dates at the book in October and November. Dates are available in June and July. And these are multiple reviews from March, April, May, June of 2024, and the compliance date was December 1, 2023. I also have here a photo that was taken on July 10, which shows an elevation shot of the property, and there's an out-of of state vehicle parked on the property. I would like to end to this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Yes, good. So this case started in November? Yes. Do I hear you correctly? Yes. Why is this just now coming forward? Because it was removed from the agenda because they were in compliance for a short period of time. But then it went back on, yes. That's what I suspected. I just wanted to confirm it. And how many units are there? I think there is three. OK. thank you. You're welcome. Good morning. Can you state your name and address for the record please? Rahim Kapadia, 1345, 14th Street, North. Okay. You live at this place? You live here? Okay. You understand the violation? Yes. Okay. The issue has been resolved. The issue has? Yes. Okay. The issue's been resolved. It's been resolved. It's been again. Okay. Well, it had been resolved before. So... I've never come to this building in my life. The issue's been resolved. It won't happen again. What about future bookings? Life don't you? There are no. It looked like there's had some bookings. You can... If she can pull up the link right now, you have access to your laptop, that link will not work because that has been taken down. What are your plans? If you look at that listing also, you'll notice that it's not my name, not my face, not my anything. So I had to do some digging found out what it was and it won't happen again. So you're seeing somebody was using it without your knowledge? Somebody was using the address. Okay. That's the top. Any other questions or have a motion? How are you leasing those units now? I live in the mean unit. My father lives in the upstairs unit. The downstairs unit, he doesn't want anybody there. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I'll make a motion. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violation issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violation of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Rahim Kapadia and Ramzan Kapadia. Sorry, that was incorrect to correct the violation within five days or by a date of July 29th 2024 if this order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day shall be imposed second. Okay. We have a motion in second We'll call please a cyclist. Yes, I'm sorry. Yes, wait. Yes Wilson. Yes, riblay. Yes Okay, sir. Thank you ride base. Thank you Next case Will it be something else? Item 86 property owner Luis Whitfield and Donna Creary Investigator Petrina Miller. Good morning. I'm Petrina Miller, Coase Investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference item number 86, case 24-5417, regarding property located at 2935, 6th Avenue South. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by the owner. This is a co-sinitiated case. The property was first inspected on April 4th, 2024, and a violation noted sent to the owner would have complied state of April 26th, 2024. An extension was granted with a new complied state date of May 26, 2024. The property was last reinspected on July 18, 2024, and the following violations that exist. FASHA has rotted areas, chipping peeling paint, including but not limited to the FASHA. Door has rotted and or missing areas. The fence has broken and missing areas. The fence has broken and missing areas. Mole mel do like substance, including but not limited to the exterior walls, fascia. Torn screens at the doors and windows. The accessory structure has a missing door. Softened fascia has missing parts and the roof has missing parts. Sarah out of service violations have been corrected since the case began. Notice of herring was sent first-class mail posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, and was posted at a violation address on July 12, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records, book number 20181 paid 0159. During the course of my investigation my last contact with the owner part to today was May 3rd, 2024. Owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance. The additional relevant facts are it is on occupied and homestead and so I did personally deliver a N team application to the owner had a conversation with her on May 3rd, 2024. We have not received that application back. So I would like to enter into evidence that's Exhibits 1 photographs which were taken on July 18, 2024, documents 071824417PM and photos 1 through 7. Here's the front elevation of the property. Here is the chipping peeling paint on the face, a soft area and a mole meldude cereal wall. that has rotted or missing areas. Here is a photo of the screen that is torn. Here we see Mo Mildu at the exterior wall and the fascia area. Here's the disrepair to the fence at the rear of the property. Here is a photo of disrepair to the fence at the rear of the property, but also we can see the accessory structure where does in this area is where the missing door is. Apologize couldn't get a better shot with the vegetation overgrown vegetation, but the soft fit that has fallen out and there is a hole back here. And more of the fence that is in this repair. So I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence that exhibits through and disconclused my presentation. Okay, thank you. The second the last photo you showed was that part of the main structure? No, it's a shed. That was a shed. Yep, at the rear of the property. Okay, big shed, small shed. Regular size, it's not oversized. Okay. And you think the door replacement would require a permit? Or is this something that says a shed, someone could just deal without a permit? Yeah, they can deal with that. But the shed is in severe disrepair. I'm not even sure if it's salvageable. Yeah, okay. We'll do more. All right. Thank you Okay, and I just wanted to say thank you for mentioning that you dropped off the end team. Oh, yes, that's good information Good morning. Could you state your name and address for the record please? Good morning My name is Louise Whitfield. I live at 29356 at the south. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. Sir, are you going to test? Are you planning on testifying? Yeah, because I've been helping her, but could you just give us your name and address? I'm going to be a little bit more about the city. I'm going to be a little bit more about the city. I'm going to be a little bit more about the city. I'm going to be a little bit more about the city. I'm going to be a little bit more about the city. I'm going to be a little bit more about the city. I'm going to be a was the door on the house. I replaced the door. I didn't know it was a shit. Okay. I replaced the back door and I replaced the right and the right and the board. There's some stuff I got to steal through the house, but I'm doing stuff to my own house. I can't help it the way I want to help go through my house. I'm trying to help her. She said if you want a fifth in-clock. Does she do anything with the N team application that was dropped off? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, is to pursue the end team to see if they can help. Yes. And then this. I can help her fill it out. OK, I think that's first. And OK. So I spoke to the grandson today, and we agreed that I would be in contact with him moving forward so she can get the assistance that's needed. OK, and then the meantime, we can give you some more time to kind of continue to fix some of these things Well, surprise surprise, huh? Yeah, so I would suggest maybe Miss Miller can can help you and explain exactly all these violations so that Repainting I'm not my scrape paint but I'm probably watching the house I am gonna do that but like I said me doing my own house okay and me working it's so hard for me just to do both houses miss miss Whitfield how long have you owned that home? I'm just curious. I've been in it now over 20 years. Over 20 years? Yeah. That's a good area. I don't have far from there. That's a nice area. And we want you to be safe. And in a house that's not going to fall down on you. So it's pretty old. And you know, you have a blessing and grandson is able to help you. But the end team can do it faster. And if you apply, and they accept you, then it puts all of this on hold until the work gets done. Okay? So I really think that's the best route for you to go if you can. Okay, so let's see if we can give you some more time to take care of this as anybody. I'm gonna do it. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Louise H. Whitfield and Donna Elaine Cleary are EM to correct the violations within 90 days or by the date of October 22nd, 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $100 per day shall be imposed. So, okay. Okay, if a motion and second, any questions, comments? No one does it take to typically with the end team application to get approval. I don't know. Just because you just need approval, right? 30 to 90 days. Yeah, I mean, within 30 days days we should be able to review it and determine whether or not they're going to be eligible. Okay. But it's going to take her some time to get the application together. Yeah, that was just making sure we gave her enough. I don't know what they're back while it was. Okay, thank you. Roll call. A sec list? Yes. H Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. If by if yeah, and then if by chance you can't complete all of these by 90 days You you will get another letter to go before the magistrate Who can then grant you some more time, but I hopefully you can get this done if you get the in team onboard Okay Yeah, that's what we always hope most people don't want to come back Yeah, that's what we always hope most people don't want to come back. Okay, well good luck. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you for taking such good care of your granny. All right, next case. Item 30, property owner St. Jude Great Commission Church, investigator Carl Gordon. the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a commercial structure and an occupied by tenants. This is a citizens complaint case. The property was first inspected on April 19, 2024, and the violation noticed to the owner with a compliance data of May 28, 2024. The property was last reinspected on July the 15, 2024, and the following violation still exists. Work active and or completed without an improved permit and or final approved inspection, including the installation of a fence. One out of two violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mad posted at City Hall, sent certified mail and was posted at the violation address on July 11, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county and fisher records, book 05015 page 1030. During the course of my investigation, I did not have any direct contact with the tenant or the pastor. However, I did make contact them and left voicemails on his voicemail message on June 20th and July 18th, 2024. The Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day there are for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts to this case is that a permit has been applied for. The permit is currently in the in process status on July 22, 2004. Corrections that are needed by the permanent department was emailed to the contractor. are needed by the permanent department was emailed to the contractor. This property is also in a historical landmark, has a historical landmark designation. I would like to enter the evidence as exhibit number one for the grass which was taken on July the 15th, 2024 document 071524, 920, CBG and follows number one through four. Here is a front view of the property itself, the structure itself. Here's the signage to the structure, to the property. There is a fence located on the property which needs improved permit. There is another angle of the fence that's located on the property. I would like to enter this fact she into evidence as the exhibit number two in this concludes my presentation. Thank you. So so the permit is just for the fence installation. Yes, permanent is for the fence. So it just the fence. The fence, but due to it's been on historical landmark and also commercial property of permanent is needed for defense, the installation of the fence. Okay, so the fence has it exists, does that comply with code? It's difficult to say because I think part of the corrections requested were whether or not the fence was within the city right of way in some portion so that would make it noncompliant but also with the historic preservation piece chain link is not something that they would standard approval so in order to get approval for the chain link they would have to go through a public hearing with the CPPC. All of those things that was yeah thank you. All of those things yeah. Okay. Good morning. Could you state your name and address for the record please. Pastor, I would nesbit 4526. Yamrath Avenue, South. Saint Petersburg, Florida 33711. I may speak. My name is Joanne Nesbit. I'm a church administrator. 45, 5, 2, 6, Jornbeth Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida, 3, 3, 7, 1, 1. Do we have to, there's a tenance, but are they on or is this the owner? Typically we can hear from the pastors of the church and they would essentially be the property managers as well. Okay. OK. So you understand the violations here? With the exception that the fence does not encroach on the city right away. I call the driveway. The church has a long driveway that goes from 20th down to 22nd Avenue, but it does not encroach on city property. Now, there's one little section of the fence that does encrootch on city property and the only reason that's on there because we will the city was going to give us the property and sell it to us for a dollar. That's on the next lot on the north end, on the north end of the cemetery. It could be removed if need be. But we're still in the process. It's still on the table. So we wanted to sense it off because of what was happening down there. The cemetery, as well as the church itself, became a lover's lane. The cemetery, as well as the church itself, became a lover's lane. The roadway, I extended driveway for the church. There was so much dumping, illegal dumping there, which ridiculous, as well as there's zero, there's a zero lot deal coming out of the annex. With traffic coming through there sometime really fast we almost had two accidents, people coming out the door. As soon as you step out the door you're there they almost got hit. We also had stolen car ran into the building. So it was just getting to be too much. So we decided to fence fence the property off. So you need a sense fence in it. We've had one incident of a lover's lover's later way up into the cemetery. And but. Pastor, you needed defense for security, right? For security? So you have a safety and security. You have a contractor who came in and put the fence up and there's a permit in process to make that fence legal. Right. So where it sits right now is that they've given corrections to your contractor and that contractor has to answer those corrections before the permit is issued. So we can't, we have to pursue this violation until that permit gets issued. No, we can give you some time for that. But we can get you some time so that your contractor can work that out. That's what we want. Time. Can I make a statement? Yes ma'am. Not just a contractor. We also, because I think you mentioned it's historic. So we do have to have time to take care of that. That's a part from the contractor. That's our part. So that's why we from the contractor. That's our part. So that's why we're gonna need the additional time. So how much time do you need, Mem? Well, I can tell you one thing. We started this permit process on May 29th. Shortly after we, Mr. Carl came to us. We just got on July 22nd the corrections that we need. So it stayed in permitting for nearly two months for them to get that through to us. Now we're going to have to have the additional time to work on the corrections. So we need... Between, well, it's three entities now we have the we have the city for the building we have the fire department we need to talk to and we also have historical preservation I would say I would say 120 days. I think the preservation one is going to be to hang out to bring the three entities together and get it all worked out. Okay. I'll make a motion. Make a motion. Okay. Let's see if we can. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders St. Jude Great Commission Church to correct the violations within 120 days or by November 21st, 2024 if this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day. She'll be imposed. Second. Good motion. Second. Any questions? Roll call please. Yes. Ensar. Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Riblay. Yes. Okay. So you have 120 days and let's hope you can get that resolved. If by chance you don't you'll get another notice to go before the matter straight and you can ask for additional time, but Thank you. We'll hope you get some good luck Next case, I believe the next two cases are connected and so it's gonna be item 16 and 17 Would you like them red and separately? Let's see here. Let's look at them separately. Let's see here. Let's look at them. 16 in 17. Oh yes yeah we can read them. Item 16 property owner Lollem 103558 ANLLC. Fung fam investigator Brian Audet. Good morning. I am Brian Audet, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, and then the next item is the item. Investigator Brian Audet. Good morning. I am Brian Audet, co-investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number 16. Case number 24-6598. Regarding property located at 1035, 58th Avenue North. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single family structure and is occupied by tents. This is a C-click fix case. Property was first inspected on April 19, 2024 with a compliance date of May 15, 2024. The property was last reinspected on July 19th and the following violations still exist. Advertisement and rental of a property for transient accommodations, occupancy for less than a monthly term is prohibited with a neighborhood traditional single family NT1 zoning district. Zero out of the one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall sent certified mail and was posted at the violation address on July 5th, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 22036 page 0270. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter. There are no additional relevant facts in this case. I would like to enter in the evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on 719-2024. Documents 07-2424-CEB. Photo number is one and two. So this is a landing page, like to note the kitchen in here, the stove. And three reviews since the compliance date in May. State a few nights, state a the United, State of the United. I would like to enter this fact sheet in the evidence as exhibit number two, and let's conclude my presentation. I'll read the other one. Actually, Cheryak, can we take these? They're different. Separately, please. You want to take them separate. Okay, so we're going to take them separate. Okay. So, can you state your name and address for the record please? Joshua Hess 2550 Granada Circle East St. Petersburg, Florida 33712. In relationship to the owner? Managing member of Lollum 1035 LLC. Okay. Okay. You understand what the violation is? Yes, I do. The property is still on Airbnb, set as a with the 39 minimum. It's been completely vacant for about a month. Prior to that, the only person in the house was there for over a month. The last short-term reservation ended May 12th. there for over a month. The last short term reservation ended May 12th. Back in May I did send two emails to Mr. Audet letting him know that we're no longer marketing as a short term rental. So yeah and it's no longer being marketed as a short term rental. Okay. Okay. Any other questions or any future bookings that are short term in nature less than 30 days? No. Okay. Any other questions or any future bookings that are short term in nature less than 30 days? No. Okay. We're trying to sell the house. Trying to sell it. We're just going to... It's on the market for, you know, 39 minimum. There's no instant booking. So I'd rather leave it vacant just to make it easier to sell. But I'm, you know, that process could take a while due to the next issue we're going to be talking about. But so I'm open to selectively approving tenants depending upon, you know, if they want to rent for 30 nights or more, obviously, but just very selectively because getting the house sold is the priority. Okay. Do you personally or the LLC have any other properties here in St. Pete? No, just my primary. Okay, thanks. I'll read some. Mm-hmm. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue with the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, the board finds that the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders low-limb 1035, 58 on LLC and phone, thigh, fam to correct the violations within five days or by the date of July 29th, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. We have a motion second. Roe copies. A cyclist? Yes. Hands up? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Rive Lane? Yes. Okay. You've got the five days correct it, which you've already done. So we appreciate that. Second cases item 17. You're going to read yes. Lollam 103558 AN LLC, Fung fam investigator Brian audit. I am Brian Audette, codes investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference to Item Number 17, Case Number 24-6995, regarding property located at 1035, 58th Avenue North. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a Codes follow-up case. Property was first inspected on 419, 2024, and a violation noticed to the owner with a compliance state of 515, 2024. This property was last re-inspected on 719, 2024, and the following violation still exists. Two illegal units found at the property units have not been permitted. Property card interpretation from 2003 indicates only one dwelling allowed at the property. Zero out of the one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted in the city hall, sent certified mail, and was posted at the violation address on 75th 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to hearing. Ownership was confirmed county official records, book 22036, pay 0270. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance. No additional relevant facts, and I would like to enter this into evidence as exhibit number one. Photographs which were taken on April 19, 2024. Document 072424CEB, photos 1 through 4. So in this photo, I have one kitchen here, one kitchen there, separate living rooms. So it's stating just for one dwelling. That's only allowed one dwelling up this property And this photo This photo you see a living room bedroom and a kitchen There is another set of pictures. Another, well this might be the same kitchen as the main one. And then the last one here. The property card interpretation, Santa's only one unit to exist on this property. Here's the additional kitchen over here. Remember the difference. We'll look at this fact she did an evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you. So you have a question. So you think that there are three units here? I do. But from what we can see on the listing there are two kitchens. So one of them has to be capped off the 220 has to be permitted and capped off to kill the power to that 220 stove. Okay. Okay. Mr. Was is an N22 neighborhood? the property card interpretation that was done states that it was only for one single unit. This is 1035-55 years. Why is doing that, sir? We're going to need you to state your name and address again for the record. If you don't. Joshua Hess, 2550, Granada Circle East, St. Petersburg, Florida, 3371-2. OK, thank you. This will since NT1. NT1. OK. Are they not allowed in ADU by right? Excuse me? Are they not allowed in ADU by right? Excuse me? Are they not allowed in the ADU by right? I can check the matrix. And how does that work when a property card interpretation says single family? Yeah, so essentially what that's indicating is that that is the only approved use of that property. So the work that was done after the fact, after that interpretation was made, that created the additional units, that's all unpurmitated work that was never approved by the city. Now there could be the potential, and I'll have to look at it, that maybe there could be one additional unit there, depending on what's approved within that zoning district. And he could certainly go through that process. But correct, but that's why it's before he now, because it was never approved for more than just a single family. All that work was done, you know, without permits or else. If they submitted for that, it wasn't approved. They wouldn't have gotten the approval to do it. So. Got it. Thank you. Sorry. No, it's fine. Okay, so you understand the issue here. I do. Just to clarify the property, it is a single family house. It is a one single family five bedroom house. There are two kitchens and a wet bar in the house. If any of the work was not permitted, it wasn't done by us. We bought the property as it currently is. And we're not aware of anything that was, you know, not done and not permitted when we bought the house. We bought it with a conventional loan, which if this issue came up at the time, the lender wouldn't even have closed on it. It wouldn't have funded. So. When did you purchase the house? It was the end of 2020, late in the year in 2020. And four years. Unfortunately, you're the one that got stuck with it. Understood. So do you understand what you need to do at this point? Yes. And the actions I'm taking so far, first I do have a contract with a general contractor who's been at the house. I know he's been down here at the city, talking to different departments about it, what we have to do. It could end up being a little more expensive than what it initially looked like. I don't have money for it, so I'm hoping to work out some kind of payment with them, or maybe I can pay them out of equity when we sell the house. Unfortunately, we've been sending my wife and I a lot of money to her family in Vietnam. I have a sister-in-law that went through cancer twice. No insurance. We paid for it 100% ourselves for treatment, as well as a brother-in-law with legal fees, long story short. We're about $400,000 in debt now. And we just, we can't afford to do this right now, which is also why I have the house under contract with a realtor to sell it. Ultimately, what we wanna do, because that'll help us with the debt and the family situation. Having an open code violation is hard to sell because a conventional lender will not fund alone. So I have a realtor who's just looking for investors. May want to buy cash. It a really nice discount that wants to take on this project. At the same time, I'm still trying to put a plan together with a contractor to see what I can end up doing to get to correct the violations myself. And so that's where we are. So how much time do you think you're going to need to fix this one way or the other? One way or the other. Hard to tell. I'm asking for 180 days. Because there's a lot of steps, according to my contractor, there's a lot of steps that can be involved, not just disconnecting electrical and plumbing, but he may have to pull all the cabinets off the wall, open up the wall, let Inspector look what's behind the wall, who knows he's gonna, he said it depends on what the inspector wants to see when he gets there, but he's gonna prepare me for the worst, I guess. Okay, let's see what we can give you some time. Anybody have it? I'd like to do it. I'm confused. Okay. Two illegal units, but it's a five bedroom house. Where are the illegal units? Well, apparently from the diagram that he had up there, I could see at least two units. The front house and the back of house. The back house and the front house. Yeah okay did not see. It's a little hard for this. It's a little hard for him sitting up here to his house. So there is a separate structure that no one structure is all connected. And it's all connected inside. But you were you were renting as two units? And it's all connected inside. But you were renting as two units? Yeah, there's a door that we would lock if somebody just wanted to rent that section. We would just lock a door. A deadbolt, that's all it is. A little clearer. Yeah. A hotel. Yeah. Yeah, it connects. So there you go. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Is there a cost effective way to close out that second unit? I heard mention of capping 220. You can just get a permit to cap off the 220 to the kitchen, the stove. Sure. And then that would make it just basically like what he was saying, like a wet bar, like one of the other ones are. But once that stove is in there showing an additional kitchen. The only thing that I would caution on that is I haven't seen what it looked like previously, but we've seen in cases in the past where permits get submitted for something like that, and then there were alterations made beyond what was originally there. So it's not just as simple as removing the 220 because the building department's going to see during their review okay this was changed this was changed this was changed and they want that full scope of work to be covered under the permit. Yeah so you know not to say that's the case here but we have seen where you know what seems like a simple fix can to your point in the transfer snowball and then there was other things that were unknown at the time so. You got your work cut out for you Mr. Huss? Yep it's a challenge but I'll do what I have to do. The two full kitchens are actually in the main part of the house. It's not even in the back unit that could potentially be sealed off if that's even a possibility, but that's just a wet bar back there. There's no stove range in that one. Okay. Okay. Okay. Based on the evidence presented in this case, I moved at the board issue of the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders low-lim, yes, low-lim, 103, 5, 8, AM, LLC, and F and FUNTI FAM to correct the violations within 150 days or by the day to December 21st, 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Second. Second. Wait a second. Any other questions coming? Roll call please. A sec list? Yes. Ensar? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ripley? Yes. OK. So we've given you 150 days. If by chance you don't resolve this, you'll get a notice, look out for a notice, and keep in contact with the codes investigator that you can go before the magistrate and ask for additional time. Okay. Good luck with it. Next date. Item 178, property owner Pacifica Emerald Bayald Bay, LLC, investigators, or item Alendez? Good morning, I am Suraid. I'm a lander, I'm going to investigate it for the City of San Pidesburg. I'm going to reference to item 178, case number 24, 7720 regarding property located at 3901, 38 Avenue South. I was sworn in at the beginning of this meeting. This property is a multi-family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a co-initiated case. The property was first inspected on May 2, 2024, in Valetian, not as sent to the owner with compliance date of May 31, 2024. The property was last reinspected on July 16, 2024, and the following Valetian still exists. The sewer line in the backyard is in this repair. This plumbing work requires a permit. Zero out of one violation have been corrected since this case began. Notice the hearing was sent first class mail posted a city hall censored by mail and it was posted at the violation address on July 11, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in the Fisher Public Record. Book 17837, page 1889. My last contact with the property manager was on July 16, 2024. And there was no indication when the violation would be corrected. This department recommends 25 days and $200 per day. They're after not in compliance. Additional reveling facts in regard to this case. As of July 16, there's no permit on file. And also when I was doing my re-inspection, I did saw another When I was doing my re-inspection I did saw another Cleaner line additional cleaner line in the backyard and I'll show you pictures about that I would like to enter evident exhibit one photos which were taken on July 24, 2000. I'm sorry. This is C.E.B. Pictures 724 24 7 20 Z, and I got four photos. So this is the front elevation of the building where the plumbing issue was found. And this is here. So this is the new line that was done, and this is a cleaning line. And it was done during the inspection after the case was open. Now on this picture here, you're going to see the all line that is open and it was done, there was work done with no permit also. And there's a better picture here where this line was open and work was done with no permit. I would like to enter these fact sheets into evidence exhibit two and this will conclude my presentation. Okay, thank you. You have a question here. Mrs. Monde, you indicated this was a code initiated case. I'm just curious how did you or whomever it was come across this issue? So I was out there doing re-inspection and when I I was walking the property that's when I saw these issues Yeah, and then I went to the office and talked to the property manager. I like it. Okay, thank you. Good morning. Can you state your name and address for the records please? Takwee Shaburg, what the property address of my personal? Your address? 1501 21st Street Southeast, Weston, Florida, 5650. And Sarah, are you gonna testify? Yes, my name is John Changer and my property, my residence is 5045, Hartwell Loop and Landelake, Florida. 5.045, heart world loop and Landel Lake's Florida. And so your relationship to this Pacifica emerald? I work for the company, I represent them. You work for the company and ma'am. I'm the property manager. You're the property manager, okay. So what's going on here? Well, for what I can understand, there was an incident where the line was blocked and they had to go to the process of sneaking the line to relieve the pressure. The whole building was blocked, it was an emergency situation. And the way the line came across, it was a previously had what is called a, it was a clay pipe connected with a PVC. And there was roots going into the line. So at the time they did what they could by digging it up to release the pressure. And then at doing that they thought that what a cleanup originally was they wanted to relocate a second clean house that could have better access to to the building from both sides going forward and going towards. So they did what they could, but the problem with the situation was that we don't know the person, the maintenance team at the time did it with some other contractor and we can't seem to find the actual person who did the job for us to have them go pull permits and as understanding it's very difficult to get other contractors to come in just to pull permits for what that didn't do. So we kind of have a little bit of a dilemma here. So then they left the hole open. So that's how the inspector was able to find the problem. You don't think the contractor did this work for you? We don't know if I don't think it was a contractor. I think it was just at the time they just pulled people shovel things up and then they just did what they had to do. And I cannot understand that because, you know, if I was on site and I have like a bunch of tenants who were screaming that they can flush the toilets and you know, you let's be flooded, they did what they needed to do to solve the problem. Okay, you keep saying then, so the property manager? We, yeah, we're new to this situation. We weren't a part of the digging up. It was other. Maybe that's coming and making it a little clearer down. To clear it up. Yeah. So I've tried to find emboises to figure out who dug the hole up and left it exposed to previous property management. Yes, the previous property manager and the previous maintenance supervisor. I can't find any one to pull permits because all the penalties are going to fall on them if they pull the permits. Yeah. Okay. Do you know if they replaced the clay pipe when they replaced when they dug out the sewer line? You mentioned clay going into PVC. Did they replace that clay? Yes. What they did was that at the section to where they had to where they make the connections from PVC to clay, they replaced that section which was about a four feet section. With PVC, I remember. Yes. And then they and set up since it was an old clean-out they just wanted to have they replaced the clean-out and put it in the picture you saw the big big so basically that's what they did so they could create better access to to snick the line and in fact yesterday I myself personally had to snick the line and I'm glad, yesterday, I myself personally had to snake the line. And I'm kind of glad you put it there because otherwise it would have been another major problem. You had to snake the line yesterday? I have to snake the line because it's not so big. It was a big snake. Yeah. It was not big. Okay. So I had to snake the line again. Oh. Yeah. So it sounds, yeah, it sounds like you still have the problem and you're going to have to get a contractor in here. It seems like we have to big it up again and in this time up we just wanted more time so we can do it properly. Okay so how much time do you think you need? I would say due to the situation if we could have at least six months or as to because we have other issues that we have to involve right now. Let's see what the board can come up with. I don't think you can go six months and have that building occupied without if your sewer system isn't working. And I just want to, or the record is, this is not a multi, it's a commercial property. Yes. The Pacifica Emerald Bay has been before us many times before. Yeah. I was about to mention that you are both two new faces for Pacifica Emerald Bay. I think maybe it's time to fish or cut bait. You need to hire a plumber and have all of those lines look at because this Melinda's has found other problems. So it's not just this line and 120 days is a long time for people to be able to flush the toilets. Well, currently the line is like like I said, we have to sneak it yesterday, but it's not so much of what they've done, that wasn't done right, is that there's a lot of abusive. I mean, one of the things that I've come across, it's not so much the building has their issues as well underground, but it's more like the abusive of we find all kinds of stuff we found you know understand that so Department of All kinds of things right yeah, you know, you have to plan for that right but due to the online, we have so much other issues that are pressing that is actually, we have AC problems. So I would like to have as much time as I could to in order to solve the immediate problems. The meantime, the company is getting rent, so. Yeah, okay. Let's see if we can. I'll read this and then we can talk about it. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I moved that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the Coates Investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Pacifica Emerald Bay LLC to correct the violations within 90 days or the federal bill. The federal bill is the federal bill. The federal bill is the federal bill. The federal bill is the federal bill. The federal bill is the federal bill. The federal bill is the federal bill. The federal bill is the federal bill. The federal bill is the federal bill. The federal bill is the federal bill. The federal bill is the federal bill. The federal bill is the federal bill. The because they have to engage a plumber and he has to get a permit. Yep. Go call. A checklist? Yes. Hands up? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ripley? Yes. OK. So you've got 90 days. So if you get a contract round board and get them to pull the permit permit that puts this case on hold That's the what you need to be doing in this 90 days so It doesn't have it doesn't you don't have to complete the whole project But you've got to get a contractor on board and get them to pull the proper permit to do this work within the 90 days Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Good luck. Okay, next case, please. Item 175, this one is, I believe, connected to another case item 183. They're both back to back. Property owner, Wanda, Ibelace, Colin, Tapia, and Bernardo, a co-star, Colin. Investigators are Rita Melendez. Good morning, I am Serena Melendez, going to investigate it for the city of San Piresburg, testifying and reference to item 175, case number 24, 5026, regarding property located at 43, 52, 15 Avenue South. I was learning at the beginning of this meeting. This property is a single home and is occupied by tenants. And this is a cyclical fix case. The property was first inspected on April 2, 2024. In Valetian notice and to the owner, we compliance they of April 25, 2024. The property was last reinspected on July 16, 2024. And the YAM following Valetian still exists. and the YAM following Valetian still exists. Abert Tyseman and Rento of the property for transient accommodation, occupied for less than monthly term is prohibited with the neighbor traditional single home zoning district. Proof of cancellation of illegal future shirt on rental booking in the area of the city. We will be able to see the area of the city. We will be able to see the area of the city. We will be able to see the area of the city. We will be able to see the area of the city. We will be able to see the area of the city. We will be able to see the area of the city. We will be able to see the area of the city. and it was posted at the address on July 9, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Honor ship was confirmed in the Fish of County Record Book 22230, page 2462, and during the course of this investigation, my last contact by email with the honor was on July 11, 2024. And she indicated that the violation will be corrected before this hearing. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day. They are after not in compliance. Additional revelant facts in regard to this case. All the days being removed, except adding get a cancellation notification for August 17 in August 18. I would like to enter into evidence exhibit one photos which were taken as a CEB case, photos 7, 19, 24, 06 C.M. 1 through 4. So this is the front of the elevation. And as you can see, this is the front of the house. And you got the living room, bedrooms. This was, this is one of the reservations that I was waiting for the young cancellation for August, which was scheduled for the 17 and 18. This is one of some of the reviews right after March and we have one week and here we have two weeks. And I would like to enter this back sheet into evidence exhibit two and this will conclude my presentation. Okay. Thank you. I would like to enter this back sheet into evident exhibit two and this will conclude my presentation. Okay, thank you. You state your name and address for the record please. My name is Marissa Blankenship. I'm not on there. I'm the third owner of the home. I'm not sure why my name got skipped. But the address is 4352, 15th Ave South. St. Pete, 33711. I live in Gainesville, 8518, Southwest 122nd Street. Gainesville, Florida. Is she on, is she listed as an owner? I make the payment. Are you sure, are you on that? The multiple owners sometimes the, yeah, they get, they get dropped dropped off but it shouldn't be an issue if there is an issue Okay, so you understand the violation yes The house is pending sale it's pending Airbnb stuff is all gone. Oh, so that's okay. Okay, okay any Just what about the reservations on there is no reservation. there's no Airbnb and there's no VRBOs So I don't know why is those then with miss molland this pull of those days were blocked out When did you pull that off the last time we checked the record was on the 16th then Yesterday I tried to pull it and I could not see the pace Yesterday I tried to pull it and I could not see the piece. Okay, so it's gone. Okay, motion, motion. I'll readable, I'll read. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I moved that the board issued the following facts. Findings of fact and conclusion of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Wanda, Evelace, Colin Tapia, and Bernardo Acosta, Colin, to correct the violation within five days or by a date of July 29th, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $250, $250 per day, she'll be in the post. Second. Okay, we have a motion second. Welcome. A checklist? Yes. Ensler? Yes. Wait. Wilson? Yes. Reble. Yes. Okay, so you've you've had five days to which you've already corrected so that takes care of that and I see we have another. So next case. Yes, item number 183 property on our Wanda Obelisk colon Tapia and Bernardo Acosta colon investigators write a Melinda's. Good morning. I am so Ritamalendes, co-investigator for the City of San Piresburg, testifying a reference to item 183, case number 24, 78, 56 regarding property located at 43, 52, 15 Avenue South. I was sworn in at the beginning of this meeting. The property is a single home and is occupied by tenants. This case, it was a co-initiated case. The property was first inspected on May 7, 2024, and volition noticed to the owner with compliance date of May 31, 2024. The property was last reinspected on July 16 and the volition still exists. After the fact that permit is required for the interior renovation, windows, open composite, hot water heater, support beams in the living room area, plumbing and electrical. Zero out of one, the evolutions have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent for a first class mail, posted a city-hosted certified mail, and it was posted at the evolutions address on July 9, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. The ownership was confirming the county official record, which is booking 2-3-0, Phase 2462. My last contact with the owner prior to this hearing was July 11, 2024. And there was no indication that this election will be corrected. the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the to the M permit in the department and she would let you know the information that she got to correct these violations and I would like to enter into evidence. She will want photos for C e b pictures documents 0 7 2 4 8 5 6 Z m. I got photos one through nine, but I probably want to be showing all of them. So when I did my research for the Shirton rental, I noticed that this property was a church before, and this is the church picture from Google. And I think I got another one to see. And I'm going to pull this picture. So this is the inside of the church. Or I mean, you know, the structure, they had the church sign. as you can see how I look. And this is the property how I look now. I'm trying to look for all the pictures here. So this is the front elevation after it got remodel. You can see the new windows. Sorry, I apologize for this. Okay, so here I'm going to pull a master. I think this is one open composite where the kitchen to the living room. And there's another picture where the one wall was removed. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence exhibit two and this will conclude my presentation. Okay, thank you. Could you please state your name and address again for this? Maris DeBlanche, 8.518, Southwest, 120 second street, Gainesville, Florida, 326-08. And are you the one that's been dealing with this permit? Well, I'm trying to. So I bought this house completely remodeled. I did none of the work myself. And I have been in contact with the city about how to take care of this. And no one's been able to give me an answer. So I went over there like an hour ago and they gave me an affidavit inspection report and gave me the number of the, uh, Peta, whatever her name is, to call to have this taken care of. For an after the fact permit, I'm not. Yeah. 100% sure, but apparently she's gonna give me the information. This work has already been completed. You're gonna get what they call the after fact, which means you're gonna have to get an architect drawings. Most likely I would expect because you took down a interior. I hope that was in it. The whole interior was renovated. Right. It was all renovated and hopefully that wall was in it. I don't even know if there was a wall there. I never saw the place before the renovation. I never even saw that photo that she with the red. That would do by the house, ma'am. October of 2022. And you didn't look at the property record online and look if permits had been pulled for any of the work. Most people don't think of that, but it's actually really important if you're going to buy a house. You should research the history of it so that you don't end up in the exact scenario you're in. Yeah. It's just the irony is the picture she showed was the guy's remodeling the house in July of 22. Here, I'm seeing it in front of you for it. You're not the first two who's been in front of us for it. Yeah, you're not the first victim of flippers. Okay. Okay. We need to give her some time to get this after the fact permit, which I'll read something. Okay. Based upon the evidence, actually who is the official property owner then? So what do we? Just read those two new. Read those names then. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the Board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code, stated by the Coz Investigator, have not been corrected. The board orders Wanda Ibelis, Colin Tapia, and Bernardo Acosta, Colin, to correct the violations within 90 days or by the date of October 22nd, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay. Would you mean a hundred or should it be a hundred and fifty? I was, I can make it longer. This is a total crap shoot. I mean, I think I'm fine. Well, no, no, the fine. Oh, no, I'm in a hundred because she's living there He's living no there's a tenant there. Oh, she lives in games. I'm sorry. I Want to correct the the dollar amount for the fine modify it Change the dollar amount from a100 per day to $150 per day. Thank you. Second. Second, another second. Okay, we have a motion in second, any questions? It's 9. You're going to be on the phone. That's why I'm throwing it out there. Probably. Probably going to be tight. It's been open since then. It's been open since then. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's been open. It's at 90. Yeah, I'm good at 90. Okay. Roll call please. A checklist? Yes. Enzlor? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Reblei? Yes. Okay, so we've given you 90 days. You are, you know, in order to get this permit. Because once you get a permit, that puts this case on hold. The clock goes on hold, right? And within if you do that within the 90 days, if you're not able to do that, you need to be staying in contact with the codes. And you'll get another notice to appear before the matter straight and he can grant you some additional time. If so, be it. I think the other thing you said is you're trying to sell this. Yeah. Okay. So come up. You know, if you're... If I'm trying to get this done before I sell it, obviously. Well, good. That's the right thing to do, but because otherwise, it passes on to the new owner, just like it happened to you. So, but you're going to need to get the first places, get a contractor. I know there's a few in the city that and architects that deal with after the fact. OK, I just Google that. Um, I, you know, I know there was one around a while ago that used to come before us with a lot of after the fact. Uh, permits. Um, you could try it that way. Okay. Call your title company and ask them why they didn't catch this. Yeah, they don't always. Yeah. No, seriously, that's where you pay for title insurance stuff like that. So call them. It should be a requirement, but here, north, there. That's horrible. That's horrible. What would you like to say? So we have, I believe, 21 more cases. So obviously not a situation where we're going to be able to push through and then take our lunch a little bit late. So it's 12 o'clock right now and I will leave it up to the board. If you would like to just break now, take one or two more cases and then we could break for lunch whatever the will of the board. Would you like a next two or short termals, so they ought to be quick. Let's take a look. Oh, are they? Okay. Yeah, let's take the next two. So next case, please. Just for the rest of the audience. Yes. So if you are not the next two cases, we are going to break for lunch because we're still going to have 18 more cases after that. So I anticipate as long as these don't run longer than normal that we would be returning back around one o'clock. So if you're not these next two cases, please feel free to leave, go grab some lunch and then make sure you return at one o'clock. So we are on 24. So we'll be reading in position number 24 and position number 25 and then going to lunch. We'll read yours into it. Okay. We'll read the next three. Okay. Next case. Item 166, property on our dust and Miller investigator, Eric Kervilla. Good morning. I'm Eric Kervilla, codesigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying into reference item 166, case 24-3792 regarding property located at 624817th Avenue North. I was wondering at the start of this meeting. This property is a single-family structure that's occupied by tenants. This is a C click fix case. Property was inspected on 3, 5, 2024, and violation and to the owner with a compliance date of 4, 25, 2024. Property was last reinspected on 7, 16, 2024 and the following violation still exists. Advertisement and rental of a property for Trans-Head of Commendations, occupancy less than monthly term on a monthly term, is prohibited with a neighborhood suburban single family, NS1 zoning district. Proof of cancellation of illegal future short term rental bookings will be needed, will need to be supplied to the Codes Compliance Department. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since case began, notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall sent certified mail. Delivered certified mail was posted at the violation address on 7-8-2024, which is 10 days prior to the hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 22604-page 1058. During the course of my investigation, I have not had contact with the owner, department recommends 10 days and $200 a day thereafter for non-compliance. I'd like to enter into evidence, 792 ERHCEB. And, see, here's an elevation shot of the property. for Airbnb. There's some of the bookings. Down here is a VrBO bookings, which we're taking on. And here on the right-hand side, you can see reservations for a week at a time in August, which we do not have cancellations for. There's another my home. And here are reviews. Some more reviews from this year. I'm going to go to the next slide. More reviews from this year. And I would like to enter this fact sheet and evidence and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Excuse me, Mr. Rovello. Yes, my bookings in August. In August of 2024. Sometimes I've trouble seeing all of that screen. Yes, there are several different pages on different platforms of bookings. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Can you state your name and address for the record, please? Yes, my name is Dustin Miller. My address is 624817th Avenue, North in St. Petersburg. You're living in there? You live there? I live there often on. When I'm not traveling for work. I have been in Indiana for an extended period of time after my father passed and I've been caring for my elderly mother. So that is why there was not a more timely response. I did reach out to code enforcement on July 17th at 3.02 PM and also reached out to the code inspector on July 17th at 3.08 PM and left the voicemail and have not heard back or had any additional contact from anyone. So you understand with the violation? Yes, and it has been corrected. It will not be rented. We are working on moving all of those reservations with Airbnb, finding other accommodations for them. And I also already have a six-month lease signed for September through March. So it won't be rented for less than 30 days. The August bookings have to be taken down. Yes, yes. So it's not listed on any of the platforms available for short term, and they are being rebooked elsewhere. I'm having Airbnb take care of that. So they're in the process of doing that. Like I said, this would have been handled two months ago, but I've had major family things going on. So it will be corrected and will not be an issue moving forward. So you do not have a tenant that you're collecting rent right now? No, not right now. So I'm in the process of actually temporarily moving my elderly mother in there as just temporary accommodations until I can find her something permanent so that she can actually live in the state of Florida nearby. So I can take care of her and then I will have a tenant long term. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Court is stated by the Coads Investigator of Not-Incorrected. The board orders Dustin Miller to correct the violations within five days or by the date of July 29th, 2024. If this order's not complied with a fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. We have a motion second. Any questions? Roll call please. Yes. Hands are? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Riblet. Yes. OK. So you've corrected it, but we've given you five days. So all right. Thank you. Thank you. Next case. Item number 14 property owner Melissa Crespo, investigator Brian Audette. Good afternoon. I am Brian Audet, because investigator from the City of St. Petersburg testifying a reference to item number 14, case number 24-6701. Regarding property located at 72-26-14th Street North, I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a C-Click fix case. The property was first inspected structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a C-click fix case. The property was first inspected on April 18th, 2024. Violation notice sent to the owner of a compliance date of May 11th, 2024. The property was last reinspected on July 19th, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Avertisement and rental of a property for trans-eat accommodations, occupancy for less than a monthly term is prohibited within the neighborhood, suburb and single family, and that's one zoning districts. Zero out of the one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, sent certified mail and was posted at the violation address on July 5th, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records, book 22448, page 2195. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with owner prior to today was on July 10th, 2024, and owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts are there's a new site that was added to this property and it allows for a two-night minimum. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on 718 2024 and photo numbers one and two. This is the landing page. On the tire home. If two nights eight eighteen eight twenty reserve I would like to enter this fact she didn't evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation Okay, thank you Yes, can you please state your name and address for the record please? Yes, my name is Billy Molina 136 Harwood Circle Cicimmy Florida 34744 Melissa's my wife You understand their violation Yes, sir. Yeah, So, nothing in disagreement. We spoke to Brian via email and his supervisor, Andrea. I think at the time it was just interpretation of the ordinance on the advertising piece, meaning that based on their explanation of it, you can't use the platform for marketing, even if you request the book. I had no objection to that. Changed it. Brian now that it was changed. So on all the platforms we're in compliance right now, we've been like sent to email, say hey, it was all taken care of on July. I have the email. So you're not seeing the property anymore? No, there's no, there's no reservations, no booking. So we purchased this retirement home. I was actually stationed in Georgia at the time Albany. I've PCS to Orlando, some there for three years. After that, I got one year left tire retire. We're gonna move over here. My wife was actually working for Social Security at Tampa out of Tampa. So it was our second home because she would have to come stay. They kind of moved to a telework thing. So she's with me in Orlando now I'm Kazimie so we're going to keep the home is second home long term rental it that way and then we'll go from there. Okay. So I just I'm on the website right now and it's still available I just put in checking dates from 8 1 to 8 5 and it's allowing me to what site sir Airbnb. I can have um Mr. Audette share the the links that we have. It looks like this one is from a different management company. It's an individual. Uh yeah I self-manage it so I'm on mine right now and it's minimum state 30 days and it's been like that since there. So I don't I'll love to look at that maybe it's a fake. Let's just think we don't have a management company booking it. So that's yeah, I just wanted to bring that up just to make it. Yeah, that'd be great. Yeah, if I can get that information, we can figure out what's going on. All right. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Melissa M. Crespo to correct the violations within five days or by the date of July 29th and 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $250 per day shall be imposed. Second. Hey, we have a motion second. Any questions? Roku. A sec list? Yes. Enslar? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ripley? Yes. OK. Awesome. Thank you. Just check that. Thank you for your service Hey one more here Item 109 property owner Senraj LLC investigator Ryan Henderson I'm Ryan Henderson co-investigator for the city of St. Petersburg I'm Ryan Henderson, Co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference to item 109, case number 23-9756 regarding property located at 1391 34th Street North. I was sworn at this meeting. The property is a commercial structure and is occupied by various tenants. This is a Co-Owned Initiated Case. The property was first inspected on June 5th, 2023, and a violation notice into the owner with the compliance date of 814 2024. The property was last re-inspected on July 18th, 2024, and the remaining violation is that there's still miscellaneous litter throughout the property trash and so forth. Zero out of one violation has been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, since certified mail, and was posted at the violation address on July 11, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to his hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records, book 20734, page 1801. My last contact with the property owner prior to today was on July 11th, 2024, and the property owner indicated the violations will be corrected before this hearing. The department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance. There are some additional relevant facts. This case was initially initiated as a civil citation case for for John Trashnebury. We actually went through that process, maxed out the leans or not the leans defines in this particular case, changed it to a property maintenance case and now it's being brought to the code enforcement board. So there are fees that have been given access to the property owner in this case. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on the 18th of July 2024. The document number 071824756RLHCEB. And so this is the elevation. This is a property located at 1391, 34th Street North. You can see even here there's some traction of re-wreath there on the ground, the first photograph. I have about nine. I don't know if I'll go through all nine because I think you'll get the sense of what's going on. Here's another one and a trash in that little landscape in Ireland that's at the entrance of the property. There's miscellaneous debris there. Photograph number... We'll go to this one, number 10. I'll go out over it a little bit. There's debris on the sidewalk, which goes down the south side of the building. Here's another photograph of the island again, a little more of a close-up, trash and debris in that island. Let's see, something a little different here. All right, here's even next to the parking spaces. There's stuff. There's actually, in one of the photographs, there was, when I was there on the 11th, there were two cups from another company that I'm not gonna put their name out there, but they had cups there, and when I went back on the 18th, those cups were still in the parking lot, just crushed this time, so there had been nothing done to it. So again trash and the breed in the parking lot. And here is one of the little areas on the back and you can see trash, cups, and all types of stuff that just is a constant feature at this particular business. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number two. business. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number two. This fact sheet, this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. I would just like to add, I think in these circumstances, you know, we understand based on foot traffic, vehicle traffic, these things are going to happen, but there is an expectation, you know, that there is maintenance that occurs. And as Mr. Henderson testified to, you know, it's not like this is reoccurring or different trash that may be out there. It appears to be the same stuff that just has not been removed in a timely manner. Not only is it a violation of city code but also it doesn't, it's not helpful for the businesses that are there and whether or not the owner or those individual businesses are responsible for the businesses that are there and whether or not the owner or there's individual businesses are responsible for the cleanup I'm not aware of but our action obviously goes against the the property owner or so Okay, just quick question. So it's all there's a culverts next door and I'm assuming that parking lot was clean relative to this That's correct in fact there's there's a there's a gas station. There's a culverts There's a grocery store. And because, and I, and I'm glad you asked that because one of the things that the property only mentioned in our conversation is they talked about transients, right? And there's situations that transients cause. That's, there's no doubt with that. The issue though is that all those other businesses, the gas station, the restaurant, and the grocery store all maintain their properties. And they have done so since the time period in which this case began. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. So did I hear you say 2023? Yeah, that's correct. 23. Right. So there were other things too. They were doing civil citation. They were getting civil citation starting from there. Okay. Okay. Could you state your name and address for the record please? Yes sir. Thank you very much for taking me at least. My name is Rod saying, you know, from New Jersey. So we manage this property and all the property. You're giving us your address and your address is 2 trillion million Montralor New Jersey. Okay. And you're the... One of the owners with no wife. You're one of the owners. Okay. So you understand what the issue is? Absolutely. We have been having some problems with this property for homeless people. Every day the situation changes. This is the pitches from today, which is totally 100% clean. When you go this afternoon, it'll be trashed all over. We have taken this matter with the St.Pee's Police Department, they have a trespassing order. We have been trying to keep it up on this property since we bought it in 2019. And my property manager comes in once a week, one day it's maculared clean, second day it's all trashed up. So we are trying to manage it at least like two to three days a week. My guy who maintains it, he's not healthy enough to do that. I have a contract with him till December. So if you renew the contract with somebody else instead of one so week, it'll be at least two to three times a week. So we would like to keep this property clean too. into its forever good and cleanliness of the place too So when when did you put these changes in place? Changes sir. Well, you said you're increasing the frequency. Oh, it will be my contract is ending in December with the new It will be my contract is ending in December with the new management company and he's the only one who runs it He does the landscaping he does the cleaning up, but he's not keeping very good health. You're changing management Yes, I have talked to him if he does not can't do it which health is not allowing him so I would need some time I could change a new contract and it'll be a lot better. Because we want it better too. You don't have to wait till December. Yeah. You can give them 30 days notice, whatever your contract says, you can notice. Yeah, I can explore that please. Too long. 60 days? Too long. Depends on what is contract. Yeah, whatever is best for you guys. Going up to his contract. Yeah. I assumed it ended at the end of the year. Yeah, but there's got to be most contracts have a term. Yeah, it's a common clause. Typically every contract, a level for common clause. So we're all different. We're all different. Okay. This is probably evidence presented in this case. I moved that the board issued the following I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I within 30 days or by the date of August 23rd, 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $200 per day shall be imposed. Second. Second. You have a vote. Okay, showing two. 30 days because that at least gives him time to get a new company engaged. It's fair. You know, whether he's contractually obligated to the old one too, I don't care. It's been over a year. And he hasn't addressed the situation to the point where change could have happened. Right. Did we renew the contract? Yeah, I'm with the Kennedy Day this fine. Well, when you're not talking a whole lot of money here either, you can pay somebody $20 to show up each day and clean up on front. Yeah, okay A cyclist yes, I'm sorry. Yes, wait. Yes, Wilson. Yes, your play. Yes Okay, so we've given you 30 days as we discussed you know You you're best interest to either change companies or find an additional company to come through and there's a lot of landscapers out there that would probably come through and help you clean that. We can maintain that. So good luck with it. Thank you all much. You should. You're luck catching your flight. All right. All right. you I'm going to do it. and music and and and I'm Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Let's go. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Okay. and you you . you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . you I'm going to do it. Bye! you . you . you music you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. you you I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. I'm going to put it on the top. you I'm going to make a little bit of a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to make a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to make a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to make a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to make a hole bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. and Yes. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do to the next one. I'm sorry. you I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. you you I'm going to do it. you and I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. and and I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this Oh. Oh the the to Hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm the the you you you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . . . . . I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful . . . . . . . . . and I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. and Thank you. and you you I I'm gonna make it Hey, hey, me, look, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me I'm going to do a. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. I'm gonna go for it. baby, baby, tell me to look, me, oh, me, oh, me, oh, me, baby, baby, tell me to look, me, oh, me, baby, baby, tell me to look, me, oh, me, oh, me, oh, me, oh, me, oh, me, oh, me, baby, baby, tell me to look, me, oh, me, oh, me, oh, me, oh, me, oh, me, oh, me, oh, me, oh, me, oh, me, oh, me, oh, me I'm going to do it. and and and and and and Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. and and you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm the I'm . Music I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Thank you. you you you you Okay. Okay. We're back in session. Next. Okay. Okay, we're back in session. Next case, please. Item 151, property owner Nathaniel Gilmore and Shannon Gilmore, investigator Tucker Hodges. Good afternoon. I'm Tucker Hodges, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg. testifying our reference item 151. Case 24 to ask, 4709. Regarding property located at 236th, 9th Avenue, Northeast. I was sworn in at this meeting. Excuse me, property to single family structure. Occupied by tenants. This is a secluded fixed case. Properties first inspected, 319, 2024. And the violation, not a sentence in the owner of the compliance date of 517, 24. Properties last reinpected 722, 2024. The following violations still exist. Evertimes been a rental of a property for transient accommodations. Occupants occupants, he lessen monthly term. It's prohibited within a neighborhood traditional single-family in T2 zoning district. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail post at City Hall's Sincertified Mail, which post sent a violation address on 710, 24, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownerships confirming county official records but 20217 page 0024. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Relevant facts, as of about an hour ago, there were no dates available for the rest of the year on Airbnb for this site. However, from screenshots in May, after the violation notice we had availability. something. Here's a review from June. I'm gonna read you a site again. And here's where I tried to book through the rest of the year and could not get any availability. One more here. I'm going to go to the next floor. This was as of this morning when I tried to get an availability or nothing. The fact sheet and the evidence is exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Okay thank you. Afternoon can you state your name and address for the record please. Kimberly Douglas 94 11 125th Street Seminole Florida. I'm representing the owner. I'm authorization. Okay. Do you understand the violation? Yes sir. The owner also emailed in, which should be in their file, all of the documentation showing that they did remove, they actually canceled reservations that were not within the 30-day stay as well as blocked off things July and August. And their next one is, it's a monthly rental for December and January. But they did send all that information in. They also had the vacation rental company that's not Airbnb. Most of them are local companies that all upload to Airbnb. It does take a couple days for that lag time for them to catch up. But it does show since May 15th that it was changed with their local vacation mental company for a 13th minimum. And if you do try to click on any of the dates and it says on the left hand side, 30 day minimum. Okay. Any questions or? I would add that there are only delay in fixing it is that they did have trouble reaching the investigator that they called since May 13th, 15th and 17th, they were out of the country on the 23rd. So when they got back and they saw it and I alerted them to it as well. They had been trying to get in touch with them since then and as soon as around the 15th, they said that they did change the listing to a minimum 30 days since they couldn't get any further details. It's like, well, just make it 30 day and we'll go from there. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any question? We want to read? Okay, great. Thank you. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I moved that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The Board orders Nathaniel G. Gilmore and Shannon L. Gilmore to correct the violations within five days or by the date of July 29th, 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $250 per day shall be imposed. Second. We have a motion and second question comments. We'll call. May I ask a question? If they've already corrected it, what? I'm sorry. We vote. This is one second. I'm sorry. I'll answer your question. A sec list? Yes. Chancellor? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. A sec list? Yes. Chancellor? Yes. Wait. Wilson? Yes. Rivline. Yes. So you're asking why we're giving you five days? Yes, sir. Yes. Because the city still saw it as a violation. So we're just, that's, you know, they have five days. If they've corrected it corrected many times people correct them with by the time they come before us, but We still you know give you an opportunity And I think from a standpoint for these these rentals is that people need to make sure that they You know pull these sites down or make sure there's because we're seeing this common you know pull these sites down or make sure there's because we're seeing this common and happening where you know everyone's stating the site sites down but it's still VRBOs still putting them up or or whatever so it's an opportunity for these owners to just to make sure because if they don't then they're going to be in violation. They won't. Okay I take care of their property and I'm the one that alerted them. Absolutely no way It should be no issue Thank you. Thank you Next case Item 75 property owner Geneva Jones investigator Patrina Miller Jones, investigator Petrina Miller. I am Petrina Miller, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference item number 75, case number 24-4064. Regarding the property located at 29, 18, 6th Avenue South. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a code's initiated case. The property was first inspected on March 20, 2024 and a violation noted sent to the owner with a compliance date of April 11, 2024. The property was last re-inspected in July 17, 2024 and the following violations still exist. Fascia has rotted areas, the soft it has loose and broken areas, exterior wall has missing stucco and a hole at the rear, chipping peeling paint, including but not limited to the Fascia. Mole mel do like substance, including but not limited to the exterior wall. Zero out of four violations have been corrected since the case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall, censorified mail and was posted at the violation address on July 12, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book number 207 8 6 page 1197 During the course of my investigation. I have not had any contact with the owner the department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance There are no additional relevant facts. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibits one I would like to enter into evidence as exhibits one. Photographs which were taken on July 18, 2024. Document 071824064PM and photos number one through six. Here's a front elevation of the property. Here we can see this repair to the fascia and the socket and part of the X3 wall with missing stucco. Chipping peeling paint at the fascia. And here's more disrepair. We see rotted areas at the fascia and disrepair to the software. I would like to enter this fact sheet into Evidence to exhibit soon and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Okay. Has everyone been sworn in that we'll be test crying today. You have not been okay. Can we get the lights please? Yes. Can you all try it? It's not working everywhere. You have to sometimes hold it. Okay. No, they did all that. So. If you have been sworn in and you're getting tested on it today, please stand and raise your right hand. Okay. I'm sorry. So. So. And raise your right hand. Do you swear a firm that evidence you're about to give us the truth and the whole truth and nothing about the truth? All right. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Sarah. Can you state your name and address for the record please? My name is Vincent Cannell. I stay at 2310, second Avenue South, 33712. In your relationship to the owner? Mom. Is your mom? OK. Yes. OK, you heard the testimony. How much time do you think you need to? To current relations. My mom passed away March the 27th, and we had got an, we called the office and got an extension. And then we all came to agreement to sell the house. It's an settlement now. So we spoke, I've come here to clear up the codes and stuff. If I, they told me I can't have it on the record before they sell it, so that's where you know I'm here. Oh, I'll be half, you know. Say that again. Okay, so sir, what you're saying is that the code's case to be closed before you can sell the house? Yes, I think it's two more that I got the clothes and I'm having the off detector to get up to go close them for me and this one right here. Okay, so what you're saying is that does the sale of the house? Yes, ma'am. That's what they told me, the people who buy in the house, they said that no codes have to be on the paper. So I came in here. And I think the only way you're going to correct that, again, the city can correct me from wrong, but you have to correct the violations. Oh, oh. Can't sell correct the violations. Oh, oh. Can't sell it as is. Okay. With these, with these. Oh, okay. You have to be patient. Yes, so the city can't just close out the case if the violations have not been corrected and the board would have to determine that this hearing today that there was no violation that existed. It's not uncommon for properties to sell with active code violations and the new owners understand that it's going to be their responsibility to take care of those violations. Maybe the current buyer is not prepared to do that but it's not uncommon for there to be buyers that would understand that they have to correct the code violations. So if the desire was to get this issue closed out that way the cell could go through just from a title standpoint that's not something that can be done here today. The violations would actually have to get corrected or the buyer will have to understand that you know they are inheriting the violations once they become owners of the property. Okay. Does that make sense? Yeah. Okay. So we can give you some time to kind of figure that out? Yes. So, anyone? I'll make a motion. What kind of ask them on? Oh, yeah, go ahead. Do you have any plans to fix these problems? I mean, so what do you want to do? Do you want to fix these problems and then sell it? Or do you want to sell it as it's like, what is your? I want to sell it as it is because we spoke to close today. But then they said these codes was holding up. Because she texted me while I was in here and she asked me if she said, I told I was in court right now, you know, trying to see. Yeah, yeah, I think it's clear that we're not going to be able to, this is not going to be able to be closed, right, based on what Mr. Law said. Okay. Can you make any of these repairs yourself or family? Yes, yes. Yes, I could do the stock hole and stuff. And then I guess she said, though, around the book, billboard, around the board. The fascia. Yes. I've... Sir, what... The people who want to buy the house, what do they want to do with it? I don't know. It's some, she's sitting on like two lots, but they pulled it as one lot. So they might just make it a two lots and put two houses there. I don't know. You know. If they buy it, tear it down and build new homes, then they shouldn't have a problem with the code's case being open. Oh. Is it the house is gonna be demolished? That'll take care of the violation. Oh, okay. So I think I'd go back to them and say, look, I can't get the codes case solved without getting it fixed. Okay. You know. Okay. And that's what's called an as is sale. So they're buying it knowing that. Okay. So they'll know these violations exist. And so they buy it under a contract called an as is. Oh, so they just tear the house down? No, no. So what they're buying is they're buying in the current condition Okay, right so they know that all these they know these problems exist So they're buying with that awareness And then you don't have to fix it so you don't have to fix it But then it falls onto them to pick this up if they agree if they agree, okay, you're buyers, okay, so I'm going to be able to make a motion. Okay. Your buyers. Okay. So. You were going to read something. So we'll give you some time to make a motion. Work that out. Thank you. Difficult one here. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violation of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Genevieve Geneva Jones TRE to correct the violations within 90 days or by a date of October 22, 2024. If this matter is not complied with, a fine of $100 per day shall be imposed. Second. I'm just giving him some time in case his sale falls through the... And a hundred because it's in the state? Yes. Yes. That's my thought. Okay, everybody okay? Everybody's okay? Well, Cyclus? Yes. Finsler? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ripley? Yes. Okay. Sorry we've given you 90 days to hopefully resolve this one way Either with the buyer taking as is or you correcting the violations But I would I highly recommend you have that conversation with the buyer and kind of sort that out. Okay Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. I have a nice day. You too. Thanks. Okay. Next case. Item 76, property owner, currently acquisitions LLC, investigator Petrina Miller. I am Petrina Miller, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference item number 76, case number 24-2677 regarding property located at 13, 5129 Street South. I was sworn in at this meeting. The properties are single-family structure and is vacant. This is the Coates initiated case. The property was first inspected on February 14, 2024 and a violation noted sent to the owner with a compliance date of March 8, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on July 18, 2024 and the following violations still exist. Permits needed for work including but not limited to bathroom, rental, kitchen renovation, plumbing, electrical, wall removal, slash replacement, door frame removal, slash replacement. There are out of one violations that have been corrected since the case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall, since certified mail and was posted at the violation address on July 12, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book number 2, 2572, 1675. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the owner prior to today was May 21, 2024. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case are that there is a permit 24-000000677 is in process and ready for corrections. There are several things that needs to be corrected. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibits one photographs which were taken on February 13, 2024 in July 18, 2024. Document 0213 2467 PM and 07182467 PM. Photos one through five. Okay, this first photo is a room and the property that the dry wall has been removed. And we see, I'm not sure if you guys can see this really clear, but there's some wiring that is also exposed. Here's another picture of that same room with drywall being removed. Here's a door frame. This is the front door. That was replaced and undone. I'm finished. And here is a missing window that has been boarded up. And here's some plumbing that's being installed. installed and this goes to the exterior of the property actually on the south side of the property. It's I'm not sure what what that's supposed to be but and here's a photo of that same pipe extending out of outside of the property. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence that this is the two and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. You state your name and address for the records, please. Sure. Johnny Poole 2450, Rihanna Drive Sounds, Department of LN57 St. Petersburg Floor, 33712. And your relationship to managing partner of Kirkland acquisitions? Okay. So you've heard this testimony. Sounds like it looks like you're in the middle of trying to renovate this or? Yeah, we started with a general contractor who was supposed permits when we started did not and we replaced a roof at the time that Miss Miller was inspecting the roof and discovered this these other issues so we stopped so now we have permits in process trying to get through the drafting part of the floor plan and once that's approved we'll get started and complete it. Okay. You're aware that corrections have gone back to your contractor? Sorry. The permit is still on hold because corrections have gone back to your contractor. Yes it went yes it went to the contract and contracted forwarded on to the draer for what they needed. And so the drafter indicated today, because I called to say, where is this? He says he'll have it done this Friday. Yeah. He's resubmitting drawing. Correct. Mm-hmm. You know, if the changes or the request was extensive, or is it just, no, there's no, there's no floor plan changes. What I was informed was they needed a drafting of the current floor plan and a proposed floor plan and we shared with I think it's Mr. Campbell I think is a gentleman down there that nothing's changed and he says well I still need to have a before and after so it's just a picture showing and writing on it proposed current and that's it. They feel you're right there. Oh it's just a picture showing and writing on it proposed current and that's it. They feel you're right there. Oh, it's simple. He says he's sending it. I can show you the text message. Yeah So your contractor give me an idea when the permit would be approved You say just approved. You say just now did give me a specific hard date when it's going to be done, but we haven't touched the site since it's just been sitting. Miss Miller, do you know if that permit is going to satisfy all of the deficiencies? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And once it's approved. Did you said the list of corrections was extensive? It's not extensive, but it's more than one thing that needed to be corrected. I saw about three different things that needed to be corrected. Yes. I don't know how extensive. If I do, sir, I go take a look myself and make sure that you know the scope of what they're asking for. I believe the general contractor said it encompasses plumbing, windows, mechanical, it's sort of an all-encompassing permit, but I am definitely following up at this point. Okay, that's good. All are you different from these? Are you sure you're ready? Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I moved that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders currently acquisitions LLC to correct the violations within 90 days or by the date of October 22, 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Second. And we have a motion in second any other questions Roll call please a sec less. Yes, Enslar. Yes, wait. Yes Yes, riblet. Yes. Okay, sir. So we've given given you 90 days Once you get the permit That kind of stops the clock so you don't have to complete the project by 90 days. You just need to get the permit and start work. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Do I need to provide anything else to the board from the permit department or from our GC? No, they'll be monitoring and they'll know when your permit has been, you know, when they, they, okay, your permit. So thank you very much. Have a good day. Next case, please. Item 112, property owner Sean Kingsley, investigator Tucker Hodges. Good afternoon. I'm Tucker Hodges, could investigate it for the city. Excuse me. For the city of St. Petersburg Test, Fanner reference item 112, case 24 dash 3766, regarding property located at 42037th Avenue North. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single family structure, and was vacant at the time of inspection. This is a secluded fixed case. Property is first inspected on 3,5,2024. And the violation noticed sent to the owner of the compliance state of 3,27,2024. Properties last reinpected, 722,2024. And the following violations still exists. Transvient accommodations are prohibited in the zone. The property is available on Airbnb for a rental time to the less than monthly term. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice the hearing was sent to first class mail. Posted at City Hall, sent certified mail. It was posted at the violation address on 710, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 19336, page 1297. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the owner prior to today was email on 722, 2024. Owners indicated the violations have been corrected by that date. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Some relevant facts and in conversation with the owner plan to make this a long-term rental. And as of today, it's no longer on Airbnb. So I've got some screenshots back in May. We have a review of a stay. Actually April and May with few. As of today. The screenshot of a I'm not sure as it has a the as of today, back in May when we were able to book for 6 to the 10th. All right, and that's it for those. And this, like the energy is fact sheet and evidence, as exhibit number two those and this like the energy fact sheet in evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation Okay, thank you Can you state your name and address for the record please? My name is Sean Kingsley my address is 4 to 0 37th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 3 to 3 Peter's for Flora, three, three, someone three. I am the property owner. You living in that current? Are you living there? Yes, yes. And you understand the violation? Yes, although if I may me ask a few questions in regards to some of the evidence that was administered against me, you have some questions? I do. Originally, I thought my case was dismissed, I guess. I reached out to the investigator the day before my initial date to report here, maybe a month and a half or two months ago, and they told me I didn't need to appear. From that point, I assumed everything was okay. I don't know how much time later, and that was gonna be my first question. When did my case actually get reopened? March 5th? Right, it didn't close, we defer to it. No, so the initial violation of this was sent in March. It was in March. Right. And then it was removed from the May hearing because listening was removed, we didn't have access to any other evidence. But then after that date, because we continue to monitor these, these don't get closed out, even if they come into compliance. We monitor them for this exact issue. The listing became active again. And as we reviewed that listing, we saw that from the time from the compliance date, there was as Mr. Hodg showed there was reviews that indicated that they saved for a few nights. So, did I just point out when we say reviews, that would be multiple or was there one? Well, let me, I wanna ask you something. Yes, I've got the notification in March. Mm-hmm. The discontinue short term. I was told. All right. Let me finish asking the question. So you got notification that you were in violation of the what was permissible in terms of renting property here in St. Petersburg. Did you continue to violate the laws in St. Pete regarding short-term rentals? No, sir. So you had no short, so you had how many short-term rentals have you had up until this point in time? In what time frame? Are we talking this year specifically? This year short-term that I've had people actually check in? One? This year short term that I've had people actually check in, one. I can, how many reviews were posted after the initial case was closed down if you don't mind me asking? So the last screenshot that we have, which I believe was taken in May, and this doesn't include all of the reviews. It just was what was on the main landing page. Just then, we have a March 2024 that said we stayed one night. We have a March 2024 that said we stayed one night. We have an April 2024 that said we stayed a few nights. April 2024 that says we stayed a few nights. Three weeks before that, which would have been early May, I'm assuming that they stayed a few nights and then middle to late May that said that they just, in the case that they stayed with kids. That would be our evidence suggests anyways that that's beyond one. Okay. Well, the one that I was initially asking about the one that was after that I guess got my case reopened or brought back to the attention of the board was longer than a 30 day period. Do I mean is there anything that shows? I have a question. Are you listed on Airbnb or VRBO now? No sir. Okay so what are we talking about then? If you're in compliance, why are you arguing about what happened? Well I'm not really arguing. I'm more asking questions on why I was crossing the family maybe. I mean I'll just clear frankly if I would have been asked to review the case prior to it being removed from the may hearing I would have said no because we had evidence at that time that suggested it. And honestly I would have disputed it at that time. Right. Being that some of these reviews were based upon family coming in in, did I do not charge? I absolutely did not. But we're back to the family reviewer. The reason may I explain? No, you can't. No, I'm sorry. I apologize. I didn't mean to interrupt. Just hold on a second, sir. I would like Mr. Wal to finish with this. Yeah, no, so again, we would, my review of it, I would not have had it removed from the previous hearing. I think there was sufficient evidence to bring it then, but then it resurfaced after we were told that it was taken off. And that's when we captured the reviews, which I think clearly showed that there was multiple rentals that were less than a monthly term that occurred after the compliance date. It's unfortunate that I can't see the rest of the reviews just because the SNP is not covering everything and the site's not live right now. But I would venture to guess that there was, well, actually I can see it right here, actually, in the top corner. I don't know how long the listing has been active, but there's 80 reviews, 4.96 stars. That's, to be in compliance, that would have to be on Airbnb for seven years. So, again, we can sit here and discuss this all you want, but the problem is, is that's the evidence that the city can use, that shows that you've had multiple stays there. Whether they're family, unfortunately, you know, they can't tell that. So you're in compliance, correct? So again, to the board's point, I'm not sure. So if you have any other questions. Well, that's why honestly, I didn't have any questions I reached out to the investigator numerous times to, I mean, I submitted a lease for long term and they still asked me to come down. So I figured if I had to come down, I at least wanted to clarify why I was down here. I don't believe, I mean, if I may, I would like to possibly in the future, use Airbnb, Airbnb. It is a decent source of medium-term rentals that are one to three months and longer. I've had numerous numerous people come down for snowbirds from Northern States and from Canada come down. It is a great option for medium-term rentals, as well as the reason why some people would use family members. I'm just speaking honestly, is because at the initial, when you first sign up as a host for Airbnb, they encourage you to boost reviews and ratings. That is initially when they advise you to give three steep discounts. Well you learn that your metric is based on that. Can I just yes. I really appreciate that. I think we are well steeped in Airbnb considering the number of cases that we get each month. So I appreciate that discussion. It's not kind of relevant to what you're here for as far as how you manage your own property that's up to you. I think you understand what the rules and regulations are in the city of St. Pete just continue to abide by them and you won't show up here again. I'm going forward making sure I stay compliant if I list it. Because even the investigator they've admitted that I have it listed for 30 days when I reposted it, when I reposted it, the only person that I took and had review was was more than 30 days. I haven't been in previous violation. I want to make sure that going forward. Just recognize that. The city does not have data Analytics to know whether you have family members saying they're not and they're not gonna that is not their responsibility to do that So just recognize when they pull data that's the data that have available and unfortunately I believe that that data being incomplete does not afford me the same rights being that it's not full Full evidence so if we're going to ask questions, Marissa who came in town for a wedding, is that one of your family members? Marissa? Is there a family member? I would have to see which Marissa I have. Eman? Several. I'm sorry. Eman, one of them. I would need to check my records. I'm not one. I don't know if that one is I have many I'm sorry enough know this Whatever we decide here today you will be watched and if this comes up again You'll be right back. You're right. You need to stop it Yeah, and like I said, I've submitted at least it's you know long-term lease I have no plan on immediately redoing this but On a yearly basis I'm allowed three. And I just want to make sure if I do the three, I won't be in violation going forward. How will the board be able to monitor if those are allowed? Board does a monitor, the co-s enforcement, I'm sorry, how would the code enforcement be able to monitor? I'm sorry, the way they're doing it right now. Right, so sir, if you have your property listed on Airbnb and we see that you've only had three reviews that indicate it's been less than a monthly term over a 365 day period, you wouldn't be here. But that is not the evidence that we have. And additionally, the fact that it was removed and brought back and again, that's, I'm just going to speak frankly, that's the difficulty with enforcing any of these, because you can walk out of that door and switch it right back to a two-night minimum. And it happens all the time. And so again, we have the evidence that supports that over the period of time that we issued you the violation notice, there was multiple reviews, all of which indicate that there was less than a monthly term that they stayed there. I've clearly asked you if any of those people were family members. You could not answer that question despite the fact that that's what you indicated. And so I believe that there's sufficient evidence to show that it was in violation of the ordinance. And as long as you don't violate it in the future, you can have it on Airbnb for a 30-day minimum and then accept your three a year from now. have it on Airbnb for a 30 day minimum and then accept your three a year from now. Is there any sort of place where I could contact if I wanted family to come? Is there any sort would I have to reach out to Mr. Hodges and show evidence that their family members that are arriving and gonna use Airbnb's a platform to boost my message? Well what if it's less? No problem. Yeah, I guess. I mean, if it's less, because they're family. Just don't do it. Yeah. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue, the following findings, a fact and conclusions of law, the board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Sean Kingsley to correct the violations within five days, or by the date of July 29th of 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day, shall be imposed. Okay. Here we have a motion and a second. Roca. A sec was? Yes. Hands up? Yes sec less? Yes. Tensler? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ripley. Yes. No. I appreciate everybody's timing. I just had one final question from Mr. I just wanted to make sure as it appears today everything is there's nothing left. I'll still have the correct. Well the rest of the year I didn't see anything. Well no, what I'm saying, yeah, there's nothing else I can say. As we stated in the previous cases, we're just giving you the five days to recommend that you make sure that your whatever you have posted on BRP is within compliance. Because I, like I said, I believe I removed everything I just wanted to make sure it was. Thank you. Exca- All I see. For item 116, property owner, Danette Raymous and Sarah Moro, investigator Tucker Hodges. Good afternoon, I'm Tucker Hodges, could investigate it for the city of St. Petersburg. That's the plan in reference item 116, case 24-4280, regarding property located at 2721, 39th Avenue North. I was sworn in and started this meeting. It's property is a single family structure and vacant. the . The . The . The . The . The . The . The . The . The . and the following violations still exist. Rufus and district parin various areas of missing shingles, various facial boards are in district parin, rotted, peeling paint, various areas in the witch fence are in district parin, missing pickets and rotted boards. Zero out of three violations have been corrected since the case began. The notice appearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, and was posted at violation address on 7-11, 2024, which is least 10 days prior to his hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records, book 1594, page 0871. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the owner prior to today was on 7-20, 24, and the owner did to today was on 720, 24. And the owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts on 720 I met with the owner and when I was suddenly repaired, that are needed, they were actively working on the fence Saturday. working on the fence Saturday. Like that, Aaron Navidance, Exhibit 1, Federal Raps taking on 717, 2024. Document 071724280RTH. Here's a front elevation and you see some of the shingle disrepair and the softened disrepair. It's a bit more of the softened damage, so it's rotted in peeling paint. More of the roof And the fence disrepair Like I know there's fact sheet and evidence is exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation Okay, thank you Good afternoon. Can you please state your name and address address it for the record please? Yes, Sarah Foster 1535 North East 139th Street, North Miami, Florida And DNA Ramos 1535 North East 139th Street North Miami, Florida 32161 Okay So you've heard the it sounds like you've been working on this. Yeah, we've been working on it in in January her father passed and he and his wife were living in the property several years ago and because of failing health they came down to Miami to live with us and we still kept the property in hopes of wanting to move back and unfortunately in January, her father passed. And I don't know because of that, but we found out that we were missing mail. So that's why we missed, I think the first initial, the code violations. So we first heard about this in June when we received a hearing notice. And as soon as we received it, I sent an email to Mr. Hodges to let him know what's going on. notice and as soon as we received it I sent an email to Mr. Hodges to like let him know what's going on and we kind of put together a plan to come down today or come up today and I work on as much as we can but we do still live in Miami we are hoping we're gonna be working towards selling our house in Miami to back up here because this is really where we wanna be. But we both work and her mother is also wheelchair-bound, so that puts a little bit extra strain. So this is definitely something that we want to be able to fix these violations. As you said, we're working on the fence at least, starting somewhere, and going from there to make sure that all the violations get corrected. So I mean, I don't know, 180 days is a possibility. I'm sorry. Well, and so it looks like the roof, this repair probably needs is beyond patching. It's just a small amount of shingles that are damaged. So it's not, you may not need a contractor for that. I think the face is probably going to be the hardest part. Face it over that thing. You mentioned this was a follow-up when did it originally open? It was a foreclosure registry case sent to us. Have you contacted any contractors like a roofing contractor or someone to look at the face yet? Not as of yet. We do have a contractor that we've worked with in Miami that also, I guess has a license for all the floor. He's for certified. Yeah, that he is, you know, he's willing to kind of to come help us. But this as well. So, but again, you know, the going back and forth, we just kind of wanted a little bit more time. Ladies, I respect your desire to wear your masks. I could ask you to speak just a little more. Of course, I'm sorry. But we can make it out, but it's hard. OK, I apologize. OK. Well, let's say if we can give you some time here, then somebody I'd like to make a motion. Or if there's any more questions. I'll make a motion. Based upon the evidence in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders, Dianne at Remos, and Sarah Morrow to correct the violations within 90 days or by October 22, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day shall be imposed. Second. Motion in a second. Any other comments? Well well it's been open since March it's outside don't want it to turn into a citizen complaint case so it's been four months they live in Miami I figure another three that puts them in seven months. Fesha top it. Kid just my anything requires. I don't even think there are roofry layers. It's just patching. Fesha's often could that require a permit if it's, you know, you're doing the whole. It depends on the length, right? Yeah, it really depends on how much of it's being replaced. If they do the entire structure, Fesha at both, yes. Typically the building farm requires a permit. Hopefully they can get away with portions of it. Mr. Hodges, do you know if all of the facia is in need of repair replacement? No, I look more so on the west side and the front where it's most damaged. The other parts probably just need paint or good cleaning. It's great. Well, let's go ahead and... Let's put this in. Yeah, put this in C. Roll call. A checklist? Yes. Endsler? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ripley? Yes. Okay, we've given you 90 days. If you're gonna need additional time, you need to make sure your mail Be watching out for another notice and you can go before the magistrate and ask for additional time It's necessary if you you do hire a contractor and and and he pull ends up pulling a permit that puts the this unhold Good luck with it. Okay. Thank you X case item 40 property owners T1 properties LLC investigator Joseph Brunord Norey Good afternoon. I am Joseph for Nory. Codes investigator for the City of St. Petersburg testifying in reference to item 40, case 242496, regarding property located at 311 Mystic Lake Drive, North. I was sworn in at the beginning of this meeting. This property is a single family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on February 13th, 2024 in a violation notions. Sent to the owner with a compliance date of March 31st, 2024. The property was last reinspected on July 12th, 2024, and the following violations still exist. The entire yard has been shelled, 55% of yard is required to be an herbaceous ground cover, and also a permit is required, but not limited to driveway apron requiring a permit. Zero out of two violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was first was sent first-class mail posted at City Hall sent certified mail and was posted at the violation address on July 11th 2024 which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 21-673 page 1573. During the course of this investigation, I had an email and then today talked with Mr. McRoberts about the way forward to correct the problem. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit one photographs, which were taken on May 15th, documents 072424CEB and photos 1 to 3. So this first photo shows the ground cover, napping and herbaceous substance, and also the apron in disrepair. This second photo here gives you a close-up of the disrepair in the apron apron and the third photo is just another view. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two. This concludes my presentation. Okay thank you. So you said 55% plus is shelled at the property and I know it needs to be green, green scapes. So I guess the backyard is, is there, it doesn't like how far are we off here? Oh, can I answer it? Yeah. It's just the front yard. It's just the front yard has to be at least 55% herbaceous. Okay. Ground cover. It's all shell. That front yard is all shell. In addition, he wasn't cited for it, but because they're driving over it, the right of way is dirt. It needs to be herbaceous. Ground cover also to keep the dirt from going into the storm drains. And then he needed to permit for the apron because that was not a permitted apron. Okay, thank you. Okay. Okay. Okay, good afternoon. Can you state your name and address for the record please? Good afternoon. My name is Sean McGroomerts, owner of T1 properties which owns this property. The address for our business is 470034th Street South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33711. Okay, thank you. So to fill in some of the blanks since we have this brought to our attention, we purchased the property in 2022. All of this was inherited by us when we purchased the property, made a lot of major updates. Unfortunately, we have two young couples that rent this property. So two young couples, four cars, they park in this unapproved surface. So after speaking initially with Mr. Hervella, who was the first code enforcement on the case, we discussed the possibilities of going for a variance, given the fact that the property was built in 1935, the setback for the actual house is much closer to the road than your typical 1955 Florida center block house. So that was the reason for going for the variance because we have maybe 50% less front yard. So essentially the entire front yard is driveway, which is the issue. So we explored the possibility with Miss Chelsea Freeman at the zoning department. And after an hour discussion with her, she was very informative, filled us in on all the codes. It seemed like it wasn't really a possibility to get a variance. So what I've done is I've secured a JR pavers. I have their license number here, a licensed contractor for pavers in concrete. I'll be meeting them at the property at 11 a.m. tomorrow. I also was delayed because of the land survey taking two weeks, and I couldn't secure that appointment with Mrs. Freeman until we have this survey. So we do plan to bring it all up to compliance. Just waiting on the contractor. If we could request 90 days, I certainly hope and don't expect it to take that long, but given any possible delays that could happen, that's what we're gonna go for. I should have a permit pulled by next week, I would imagine, but I'm gonna have to rely on the contractor for that. So that will take care of, yeah, your The apron. Yes. Oh, and the other thing was What is your intentions about the shell? So the shell will have all that removed the scope of work for the contractor is as such removal of the shells demolition of the current apron and side note for that Miss Freeman helped us out and pulling the property cards since the property is much older we had to go into the paper records we were hoping to find a permit for that apron at some point did not exist so they'll demo the current apron pull a permit for a new one bring that into compliance, installation of a 20-foot driveway, which we'll be using a turf block type of paving, which has holes in the middle to meet those ISR requirements. And then from there, we should be within that 55% herbaceous coverage, and then should be clear from there. Okay. Let's see what we can give you. I just had a question. Yes. T1 properties own any other units in St. Pete? Yes, we own 16 properties in St. Petersburg. Primarily, kind of many. And all of them as you are on this one. Excuse me? I said, are you as thorough on all of those as you are on this one? Absolutely, yes. All right. All right. We've got someone going to make a motion. I'll read some. Based on the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact of conclusions of law, the board finds the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the code's investigative not been corrected. The board orders T1 properties LLC to correct the violations within 90 days or by October 22nd 2024. This order is not comply with a fine of $150 per day. She'll be imposed. Second. Second. We have a motion second. Any other? Roll call please. A checklist? Yes. Hensler? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Rubele? Yes. Okay. Sir, you got your 90 days. Thank you all. Appreciate it landscaping Everything Item 158 property owner Joanna Guadzids and Low-Jack Guadzids Investigator Eric Kervella. Good afternoon. I am Eric Kervella, co-d's investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying into reference item 158. Case 24-3668, regarding property located at 1249 Essex Drive North. I was sworn in at the start of this meeting. This property is a single family structure, it's occupied by tenants. This is a C-click fix case. The property was first inspected on 319, 2024, and violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of 425, 2024. Property was last inspected on 716, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Advertisement and rental of a property for transient accommodations, occupancy for less than monthly term is prohibited in the neighborhood suburban single family, NS1 zoning district. Proof of cancellation of illegal future short term rental bookings will need to be supplied to the Codes Compliance Department. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, delivered certified mail, was posted at the violation address on 7-8-2024. Ownership confirmed and county official records, book 225-16, page 1119. During the course of my investigation, I have not had contact with the owner. Department recommends 10 days and $200 a day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts, property shows bookings less than 30 days in future bookings and reviews after the compliance state. I would also like to enter into evidence, exhibit one, photographs that were taken on 071624668 ERHCEB. This is the landing page of the property with the address located right here. This is the elevation shot of the property. Again, and see. Here are the reviews. here we can see that in the future dates of October 2024 it is booked for one week in November 2024 it is booked for a week here. And here's a better close up of the some of the reviews. I'd like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. And afternoon, can you state your name and address for the record? Yes, my name is Eric Hall. My address is 2114 West Columbus in Tampa, 33607. I am legal representation for Mr. Miss Quartz. Okay. Do you understand the violation? Yes, I do. And so it looks that there's still some future short-term rentals on there. Yeah, I have just recently been retained by the Quasas. They're out of state so they weren't able to come in. So I did have them give me all of the documentation that related to the property. I do see whether there are two items still on record that are rented for less than 30 days. To be specific, There are three. The one in February is for the entire month of February. So since the actual statute says that for an entire month, I did call it down to the city and they did say the month of February being less than 30 days was approved. So we're going to keep that one and play if that's correct. I told them that I would validate it here. The other two she is going to cancel. The only act that she had of us is to reach out. I did try to reach out on November 17th to the office. They've been very helpful. They did give me Mr. Herbellis, cell phone number. So I did call him and this may not have been the right one, 7278-925-893. That would be correct. So I reached out and I left what was probably a two to three minute message and the goal in that was to try to determine catching up to the show if you will whether or not we needed to actually do away with the other two. Reason for that being is because there are people that are people that have signed up for those two properties. They signed up back in April. And I told them we probably have to cancel it, but I would at least come here and at least get word from you before she does that. But she's prepared she does that. But she's prepared to cancel that. As a matter of fact, that's the reason why I call it. It's the see if she needed to cancel it immediately before this hearing. So with that said, my client is well aware we've gone through the statute. She is absolutely clear on what can and cannot be done. She does not even seek to use the three days that is available in the statute. She will be compliant from here on in. But she would ask if the two days, the two time frames, one being 14 days, August 3rd through August 17th, and the other one for seven days, October 12th through October 19th, be considered with some leniency. That's not the board's so I'll defer that to the city if they want to address the board. I have more than three. You know, at this point because we have evidence that there's been the three have been captured already for less than a monthly term. Those would continue to be violations if they were stays that occurred. So, at this point, the board's going to make their findings. There's going to be a daily fine that starts to accrue. And then if we see that evidence that stay actually occurs in August, you will be back here at a future meeting. And at that point, there's potential leans that could be placed against the property for being out of compliance. So until we get confirmation that those future bookings have been canceled, this case would continue to move forward. So my suggestion for your client would be to go ahead and cancel them if she's willing to do so. Provide us the evidence of that and then that would resolve this as long as the listing doesn't come back active for less than the monthly term. Okay, Fair enough. Do we just send that information to the email that I received from Mr. Havello? Yes. Okay. Okay. Yeah, and I think the other thing too is make sure that any listings they have out there, that nobody has the ability to rent for less than 30 days. That's the other thing to change as well that some people don't remember to do that. Yeah, and I noticed all those platforms out there, Airbnb, VRBO, all of them. Yeah, after we spoke, she went out there and she confirmed for me that she made that change. So I was looking for the date up there, but when it was six days or less, so that should have changed in the system and even still have a pull it back up with me. OK. OK. OK. Based upon the evidence presented in this case I move that the board issue of the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the code's investigative not been corrected. The board orders. Oh geez. Wojtek Guadsey and Joanna Guads to correct the violations within five days or by the date of July 29th, 2024. If this order is not compliant with a fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Hey, ma'am. Motion second, any in? Roll call, please. Is that list? Yes. Penisler? Yes. Wait. Yesccles? Yes. Pinsler? Yes. Wait? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Rubly? Yes. Okay, so are they at five days? Just as we stated, is just to make sure that they correct those on any of those platforms. We'll do. I think those cancellation notices and Mr. Avella quickly. All right, thank you much. Thank you. X case. Item 165, property owner Richard Robertson, investigator, Eric Avella. Richard's on his way. Is there a way we can skip one and then come back? If you'd like to... He didn't fill out the paper for me to represent him and sent me to represent him. So I don't know if that's going to be a problem. You don't have an authorization to represent? He didn't fill out the paper. He didn't read this all the way. But... I wouldn't have to wait until he gets here anyway. So can we just skip to the next one? He's on his way. Yeah, let us know- Okay. We'll make sure you- Thank you. Okay. Next case. Item 146. Property Honour St. Petersburg Title Trust. And Dirkin Volker. Investigator Timothy Howard. I'm Timothy Howard, codes investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying in reference to No. 146, Case No. 245572, regarding property located at 301 Coffee Pot Drive, Northeast. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on April 4, 2024, and a violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of April 30, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on July 17, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Two permits from 2020 and 2019 respectively have disapproved final inspections and active permits with passing inspections are required. Exterior rear sliding glass door does not have a handles, slash hardware or a locking mechanism. Missing light globes slash coverings on various indoor lights. And the rental unit without a town ownership must have a legal premise form on file with the city of St. Petersburg. One out of five violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, and was posted at the violation address on July 12, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 2-0-0-7. Excuse me, 20071, page 1953. During the course of my investigation, the department's last contact with the owner prior to today was on April 19, 2024, and the owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case are 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case are that in ARES permit number 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 8 0 7 expired on July 24, 2023. And permit number 19 0 8 0 0 1 3 1 7 on July 24th, 2023 without approved final inspections. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on April 4th TJH, and photo numbers 1 through 3. So this picture shows the missing hardware slash locking mechanism for the sliding glass door. glass door. Here is one of the lights with a missing globe on the interior of the property. And this is an elevation shot of the property. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as Exit number two and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and address for the record? Yeah Joshua Frabel. That address is 1772 Golf Devay Boulevard Clearwater Florida 33755. Here's the representative for the owner. I do have the authorization to represent the owner. I was emailed over. Okay. And speaking with the owner and preparing for this hearing the owner represented yesterday that the globe had been replaced and the locking hardware had been put on that back door. To his understanding, the only outstanding thing is these two permits. The permits won us from the year 2000 and won us from the year 2019. He emailed over to the zoning office. The last email he sent me was on July 8th asking how to get these closed out. The permit was originally pulled because they thought they had to replace the main water line because of a leak. They ended up finding out the leak was in the sprinkler system, so no work was ever done. The contractor that he was working with to get that permit, had it falling out due to some other work that didn't get done in the property. That contractor has been unwilling to sign an affidavit. Hired a second contractor to come out and dig it up for a final inspection and for some reason that didn't pass. Currently working through the process of getting an architect to get the paperwork submitted to try to get these permits closed out. The work was never done because it was not necessary. As far as having a local contact we are going to put myself down as the local contact. My office is here in Clearwater and Pinellas County to resolve that matter. So all we're doing is asking for more time. We understand that getting the architect to go through the process to get these permits closed out because no work was done is going to take some time. So we're requesting at least 90 days to go through that process. There was no unpermitted work or anything done. It's just getting permits closed out for work that wasn't done as harder than getting a permit closed out when you did the work. Can I say something? Both of the permits have had inspections on them. So there's obviously been work that was done on the permits because both of them are showing that they had inspections on them. The AIS permit, it had an approved inspection on July 22, 2020. So for, I believe it's vertical still. And then the other one had, it failed a final for the plumbing. So they both had worked on, they were just inspected and disapproved. So they said like for the plumbing, one was the one that I know the most about. It was dug up and they realized that that pipe wasn't leaking, so they covered it back up because that wasn't the pipe that needed to be fixed. And then when they fell out with that contractor, hired the second contractor, they tried to do a final inspection and they had it redug up to show. And then it was done and then it fell there. And the owner is not sure why it failed. So that's why we're going through it again to try to figure out. And I was just retained on this yesterday, so I haven't been able to get all of the facts. So what about the face of soft, disrepair? That's still open. No, that's being closed out. That's being closed out in the door repair and the globe. Okay, so we are just down to the permits. Okay, I just want to make sure we're doing it. I had a question, sir. From the legal premises. This was a citizen complaint. Was it the tenant that complained? I have no idea. You know he has no idea. He doesn't know. It says on the first. Most likely. It was a citizen complaint. That's the opposite. Probably the tenant. Well, because they had internal pictures, it's most likely the tenant. But okay. So you asked for 90 days. Well, ask for 90 days. Yes, for 90 days just to have time to go through the process to get these permits closed out and finalized. You might want to get your eyes on the permits. You might want to get your eyes on the permits to see what's actually in there because I'm not sure these all these stories are aligning. So that'll be the plan. I got this case at 4 30 yesterday. I'll read some. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the codes investigator have not been corrected. The board orders St. Petersburg title trust and Durk and T. Volker Trust to correct the violations within 90 days or by the date of October 22nd, 2024. If this order is not comply with a fine of $150 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay. Good motion. Second. Go call please. A checklist. Yes. Hands up. Yes sec list? Yes. Ensign? Yes. Wait. Yes. Will you send? Yes. Riblay? Yes. OK. Thank you. Yes. 90 days. Good luck with it. OK. Do we want to go back to, I think, the gentleman's here. I don't know what number that was. Whatever number it was. 165. 165. Item 165, property owner Richard Robertson, investigator Eric Good afternoon. I'm Eric Hervella, Coates Investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying into reference item 165 case 24-6902 regarding property located at 2501 Keystone Court North. I was sworn in at the start of this meeting. This property is a single family structure that is occupied by the owner. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on 5, 3, 2024 and violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of 5, 26, 2024. Property was last reinspected on 7, 15, 2024 and the following violation still exists. There's an addition to the rear of the structure with no permit on file. Two out of three violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, delivered certified mail, was posted at the violation address on 7-8-2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. The ownership is confirmed in County Official Records, book 09386, page 0446. During the course of my investigations, I have not had contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days and $100 a day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case is there is a permit in process. It has been sent back for revisions on several occasions. And I believe the owner is working through plans and review process at this time. I'd like to enter into evidence exhibit one photographs which were taken. Document number 071524902 ERHCEB. This is the elevation shot of the addition right here when it was originally being constructed. This is from the street side past the neighbors yard. I'd like to enter this fact sheet and evidence and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon. Can you state your name? My name is Richard Robertson. My address is 2501 Keystone Court North. St. Petersburg, Florida. 33710. Thank you. So you want to? Well, I'm actually actually asking for a 90 day extension because I've applied a long time ago for the permanent application. It's a storage area of my house and it's outside storage. So I'm actually, I was told as of Monday that the, of Monday that the I would probably hear something possibly on Tuesday, which was yesterday, and still I hadn't heard anything back from plan review. So I know that they're backed up and we're I'm just waiting for their response if there is any, but it should be close to permitting and everything is detailed. I had an architect come out there and draw everything out too as well. come out there and draw everything out too as well. And, you know, so yeah. Okay, thank you. If we have some questions or a motion here. I'll make a motion. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Richard Robertson to correct the violation within 90 days or by a date of October 22nd, 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $100 per day shall be imposed. Second. We have a motion second. Question? Roll call, please. Aseclis? Yes. Enzler? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Rivley? Yes. OK, sir, we've given you 90 days to get this resolved. Thank you. No Yes, so once I get it permitted. Okay, I'll contact you or can yeah, that would be the best way to do it Thank you Item 141 Property owner Christine Corona investigator Timothy Howard. I'm here. I'm Timothy Howard. Codes investigator for the city of St. Petersburg. Testifying in reference to item number one, four, one. Case number two, four, four, three, five, four. Regarding property located at 911, 40th Avenue Northeast. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by owner. This is a C-click fix case. The property was first inspected on March 14, 2024 and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance date of April 7, 2024. The property was last reinspected on July 17, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Missing peeling and chipping paint on the main structure, the metal shed is rusted, and the wood fence and gate on the east side of the property is in disrepair. Zero out of three violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first, uh, sent first class mail posted at City Hall, sent certified mail and was posted at the violation address on July 12, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 1, 2, 6, 4, 6, page 2, 3, 0, 8. During the course of our investigation, the department's last contact with the owner prior to today was on March 22, 2024, and the owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and 100 dollars per day thereafter for noncompliance. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photograph, which we're taking on July 17th, 2024, document 071724354 TH and photo numbers one through four. Here you can see the rusted shed as well as some of the bare areas on the wall that are not covered in paint. Another angle showing the shed as well as the bare paint and the elevation of the fence and gate disrepair. And here's another side of the home that is not covered in paint. I would like to enter this fact sheet in evidence as exhibit number two. And this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and address for the record? Good afternoon. My name is Christine Corona Address 9-11, 40th Avenue, North East, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33703. Okay, thank you. So you've heard this testimony. I have, I have, and I have corrected all, and I did speak the inspector earlier this morning. There is a section of the roof on the shed that I cannot get to that I'm trying to work with the neighbor. It's been a difficult neighbor for quite some time. So communication isn't really great, and I have no access other than a foot from my gate, you know, like going inside the gate on the left and right-hand side. You really can't get in there too. I can't see and I'm doing all the repairs myself. I've done all the painting, the any repairs and I did have a question because the initial complaint did not list anything on the back gate, the back fencing. It was only the East Gate, which has been repaired. That was repaired last Thursday or Friday. The shed roof is the only thing that's left and I have something around every time that I go get to it. It starts raining. So I was in the middle of finishing up painting last night when it started raining so I didn't get to finish the window trim and one window. But that whole west side that he showed you is all compliant. I showed him all the pictures and the question that I had that. Now he showed a picture of the fence in the back. there's a four-foot fence, and then it goes up to the six foot. So I had, the neighbor had put up a fence, and it was kind of like, rinky. So I had taken it off and repaired it and flipped it around the correct way. And on the last, I think eight feet, I put a panel up there because I have four dogs. It started with that neighbor next door that doesn't have good communication with me about reaching over the fence. I love your dogs. Can I play with them? I'm like, no. And then it became an issue. And then it became a communication issue because of my dog. So I put the panel there on top because I've been hit twice by the neighbor down the street. I put back in to get in. You got to be able to see you East and West because everybody flies down that alley. And so I have been hit twice. So I kept the panel. I put a panel set of another four foot, there's no reason to. It's not rotted or in disrepair, all the planks are there. So I took and put it horizontally to make the gate higher so the dog can't really see over and the neighbor is short so she can't reach over to him other than that I mean if it needs to be painted I mean it's not in district pair in any shape I can pull that down and then all you're gonna see is a four-foot fence that's not in district pair. Okay well I think it sounds like you're getting very close and we can give you some more additional time to try to yeah I've got a Maybe the inspector can come out and go over those So regarding that back fence, though. I mean I Didn't have any intentions of doing any other work unless you want me to remove that four-foot panel because the four-foot fence and itself is healthy I mean, to remove that four-foot panel, because the four-foot fence and itself is healthy. It's not rotted. I keep the brewery away from it and leaves that for that reason. It's just that extra horizontal panel is there to keep the neighbor and so I can see. So I don't get hit again. Ms. Corona, have out if we give you some time. And Mr. Howard comes back out to your property and goes over the things that are still outstanding. Yeah we had discussed that earlier I said I would I got his email for me it's basically the shed in that little section that he pointed there yesterday I scraped it all and everything I had to attach a scraper to a tool to do it it's not that I'm not willing to do it I'm doing all that I'm not willing to do it. I'm doing all the work myself. You understand? Okay. Let us give you some time. Okay. You can get with Mr. Howard and you know what you need to do and you have to time to do it, okay? Yeah, that sounds good. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I've moved that the board issued following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code, as stated by the Code's investigator, have not been corrected. The board orders Christine D. Corona to correct the violations within 60 days or by the date of September 22, 2024. in the next two months. So we're going to be able to take a look at the conditions within 60 days or by the date of September 22nd, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed second. We have a motion in second. The video game was 60 or do you want to hear? Yes, that's perfect. Do thank you. She's close. Okay, roll call please. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, okay, man, we've given you 60 days. Please get with your inspector. I'm going to again. Thank you for your time. You all have a good day. Thank you. Go look. Thanks. Next case. Item 80, property owner Shirley Richardson and Martha Richardson, investigator Petrina Miller. I am Petrina Miller, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference the item number 80 case number 24-4680. Regarding property located at 3,300 6th Avenue South, I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by the owner. This is the co-sinitiated case. The property was first inspected on March 15, 2024, and a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of April 7, 2024. An extension was given with a compliance date of May 7, 2024. The property was last reinspected on July 18, 2024, and the following violations still exist. The roof has missing and loose shingles. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since the case began. Notice of herring was sent first class mail posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, and was posted at a violation address on July 12, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records, book number 1060, page 0993. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the owner prior to today was April 5th, 2024, and the owner did not indicate when the violations will be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts is on April 5th, 2024, an N-Team application was delivered to the owner. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibits one photographs which were taken on July 18th, 2024, documents 071824680PM and photos number one and two. Here's a front elevation of the property. And here is the area where we see the missing shingles. There's some disrepair up in this area and over here also. So I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibits too, and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Miss Miller, when did you say you gave them the antenna? April 5th. Yes, and they said they received it, and they had some other information that they would explain to you guys. Okay. Thank you, sir. And afternoon, can you want to state your name and address for the record please? Early Richardson, 33670 South, St. P. S. for Florida, 33712. Sir. Joe Richardson, 993, Pete Monoces Drive Drive a pop of Florida 3 2 7 0 3 Okay So you've heard the testimony understand you have some We Some we just need more time and We did get the ending information and I investigated it because there's a lot of stuff to come through information and I investigated it because there's a lot of stuff to come through. We have to make sure that the area is viable as you all say to you. So we understand the protocol and what they can do and we're ready to move there. Okay. Once you apply and you're approved for NTeam work that puts this on hold. So this is off your chest. Okay, okay. I contacted them and they had a lot of details about what they protocol are. I just wanted to make sure that they were viable. I've been scammed before. I understand. I understand. So I am very cautious about. So hopefully it's not a scam. Yeah, that's true. Well, you never know. You never know until you've been scared. I know it sounds suspect to have free house repairs completed, but that is what the neighborhood team does and it's a program for the city. So well, I appreciate that and I'm learning that. But first thing I'm out, I need to know who in team was. Right. So how much time do you need to get that application in? The biggest question I don't know is, what's the lifetime between them receiving an application and their activity? 30 to 45 days, I think, for them to make a decision. For them to make a decision and to act on it? That I don't know. That I don't know. I'm in charge of their schedule. Okay, I don't know that either, so that's why I asked that question. Mr. Miller, the roof repair photos that you showed it didn't look like it would need a permit. Those just looked like patches. Is that in line with your... Yeah, it was just that area, because because I it's a corner lot so I'm able to go on the side and see what's going on on the side in the back And there were that was the only disrepair in that area, so I yes, but do you know how old that roof is? I would only as maybe it's probably what? 15 years 18 15 But you're getting towards could be that towards the end of life of that roof anyway. So they could, so chair that, that's something that the neighborhood team will look at when they go out and evaluate whether or not. Doing that temporary repair, at one, depending on how large of repair needs to be done, whether it's within the scope. But fortunately, I believe this property is within the South Sea Pete's CRA and they just developed a new program for rapid re-roof replacements. So I don't know that they're eligible at this point in time that's not within our, you know, we also, we don't facilitate that program, but it did just get approved. So if it is something that's beyond, or if there's a desire to look into that program to get a whole new roof, we can certainly direct them to that program as well. So we'll make sure we get all the information to the property owners. Perfect. Okay. Mr. Richardson, when Mr. Wall was mentioning the CRA, have you heard that term before, community redevelopment area for South St. Pete. I try to keep wrestling what's going on. There's a lot of stuff that happens. But I'm in another county. I understand that. I have to go through her. Sure. Well, I may have, but... Definitely get the information from the city that's an area designated by the city where they're doing redevelopment. And there's possibly a way for you to get that roof or place through that program. And where are they located? What building? There's a city program. Yeah, I'm so excited. We will get you in touch with us like we did with an Avera team. We can connect you with the economic development team that runs that program to see if you would be eligible. Because when I contacted N team, it took me about three weeks to call me back. And I did get a phone call and after father's day and that's when I got all the details. Okay. So I just need to know where to go and who to contact. Okay. And you can trust them when they reach out to you. Yeah. You can remember. You and I can be able to talk about that around the box. On the chest. Thank you. The bottom line is that we want to try to make sure that the folks that are living in that house stay warm, safe, and dry. Yep. So we're encouraging you to reach out to as many people as we think can help you. I appreciate it. I appreciate the old board I've been here for about. Almost eight. I came here when Mr. Ripley came here. So I understand what y'all do now. It was the education. I'm with us. Yeah, no problem. Hey, time spent well. Time spent well. I'll read something. OK. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I moved that the board issued the following findings of the fact of conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the codes investigate have not been corrected. The board orders surely a Richardson and Martha A. Richardson, the correct the violations within 90 days or by a date of October 22nd, 2024. If this order is not comply with a fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay. Second. Any other roll call please. Sequest. Yes. Ensler? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. So we've given you 90 days. So if by chance you don't have this resolved within 90 days, you'll get another notice from to appear before the magistrate and he can grant you some more time. But hopefully you'll have an answer. And because once as stated earlier, if you get the N team on board, or I don't know if this other program will stop the clock either, but yeah, it will stop. So if you get one of these programs to come in and help that kind of stops the clock on this and you and to get that repaired but stay in stay in contact with Miss Miller she'll she'll try to help you out and not get scammed right Miss Miller Miss Miller won't scam you. I promise. Yeah. Yeah. He's like, I'm mine. Yeah. Of course. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next case, please. Item 124, Property Owner, Nimbus, Apollo, LLC, Investigator, Gene Medoo. Can you repeat the number? I'm sorry. Yeah. I'll see investigator Jean Madu. Can you repeat the number? I'm sorry. Yeah, 124. 24 so Anybody here for 1916th Street North? All right, there we go Hi, I'm Jean Madu, Poets Investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, Testifying and Reference to Item No. 1-24, Case No. 24-6847 regarding property located at 1916th Street North. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a commercial structure occupied by tenants. This is a code's follow-up case. The property was first inspected on April 18th, 2024, and a violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of May 1st, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on July 22nd, 2024, and the following violations delexist. City Building Official has declared the roof overhang along front walkways and at a ray of building as unsafe and is required a complete evaluation by a licensed professional engineer with a report and construction plans prepared and permits obtained by a licensed contractor and for the work to be performed for the complete rehabilitation of all overhangs. Zero out of one violation have been corrected since this case began. Notice of herein was sent, first class mail posted at City Hall, sent a certified mail and was posted at the property address on July 9, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 22661, page 0858. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends five days and $250 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case is that this violation was originally cited with case number 22, Nash 18282 with a violation notice on August 26, 2022. Because there was failure to address the conditions in 2022, it has now been brought forward before the border. I would like to enter into every then as exhibit one photographs which were taken on July 19th document number 07192024 847 J1M This is an elevated shot of the property. This is the front of the building. You can see the post there. This is a shot of the overhang, but because of how the sign is you can't really see it that well, but I have another photo for you guys the side of the property that shows it this repair. You can see all the posts at the front. They are all in this repair. Another front elevation. I would also show photos that were taken on 510 2024. So this is an elevator shot of the property. This is the side of the property. I'm not showing the post in this review. of this here shows the overhang on the side. The front of the property and this repair with the post. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two. This concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. So, do I understand there's still current tenant in that? Yes, there is one tenant there. It's a restaurant. The restaurant? There is one tenant there. It's a restaurant. Just a restaurant. And we have not. This has been going on for some time. And we have never received the engineers report that what needs to be done and what kind of structural issues are there. OK. So just a question, if I can. So the fact I think you use the word, the roof overhang is unsafe. And it needs complete rehabilitation. Should there mean is it bad enough that there should be nobody in there and this thing should be roped off? So I believe that deemed unsafe. That determination was made on the, what would that be? The south side where it showed the pictures through the fencing where you couldn't previously see it because of the sign. And then on the west side of the building. And that's why the barrier, the hardware was placed with the fencing around it. But due to the inaction, just related to making the repairs there, the further deterioration that's happened at the front portion of the structure, the city building, if I was not deemed that piece, yet as far as needing a hard barrier. But we're bringing it to you all now just to try to get some movement on it. It was initially in a more of a demolition process, but it's not common for us to just go in and demolish portions of a structure. I mean, if there's going to be a city initiated, action like that, it's going to address the entire building, typically. And because there wasn't even any action through that part, we have another code case for other maintenance violations. We're pulling this into this enforcement mechanism to hopefully get some movement on getting that engineer's report, getting the full evaluation. And then that will allow our building officials to make a better determination based on what's found some movement on getting that engineer's report, getting the full evaluation, and then that will allow our building officials to make a better determination based on what's found with a more extensive review from the engineer. Okay, thank you. Okay, good afternoon. Can you state your name and address for the record? Yeah, my name is Michael Oliver. I'm at 1284 North Holland, town road with Chula, Florida, 33873. I'm here on behalf of Nimbus Apollo today. Really just to provide. Can you say that again? What's your relationship? I work for Nimbus Apollo. Yeah. General things, I'm here to just provide information today. Without an authorization, represent we typically require The managing member you know that ownership of the LLC to What's your role with the company? What's that? Well really today, I mean if I could just get to this motion here. We need to know what. Position with the company. I do regular maintenance. I do things like this. I mean a little bit of handful of things for the company. Are you the property manager? No. No, I don't know. We can hear from this gentleman. I don't think we have sufficient representation in the ownership. We'll see the main problem is the property right now is in a receiver, is with a receiver since January. Do you have any ownership in the property? You personally? What's that? Do you have any ownership in Nimbus? No. All OLC. No. We can't hear this case, so anything you testify, just not relevant. Okay. Well, can I leave at least a copy of this year to show that it's not even under any more since this January? It's been under receivership. Yeah. So if you'd like to leave that with us, we can definitely. Yeah. Yeah. Because it's under a different sooner receiver since January of this year. Okay. I got a couple different copies. I don't know how many you would need to. So was that everything you've been made for me then? Yeah, at this point, so we'll review the document if there's anything that needs to be changed. Okay. Okay. So there's a recommendation to me now. So it's 25 days. No, no, it's five days. Five, five, two, five, two, five, two, five, two, five, two, five, two, five, two, five, two, five, two, five, two, five, two, five, two So they'll be getting the recommendation of the five days and $250. That's just going to work out. And you know, I, yeah, I mean, I live about two miles from there and I drive that way and I'm kind of still in this. Oh, it's going to work. Yeah, just put it in like a, oh, he wants to get it. So essentially, it sounds like what'll happen is the owners will get a notice to come back to this special matter straight hearing for next month. And there's either a member of the ownership can be here or they can fill out an authorization to represent form and they can send you or anyone else they wanted. It would just need to be a notarized form which our staff can perform. Okay, but in this case, that receiver would have to show up then, right? Not us. Not an imbecile. Whoever will be legally authorized I think he means that it's in full closure. It seems yeah. Item number 33, property owner, Tampa standard LLC, investigator Joseph Brunori. I am Joseph Brunori, cones investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number 33, case 247071, regarding property located at 219-80th Avenue, Northeast. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is vacant. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on April 25th, 2024, and the violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance state of May 29th, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on July 16th, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Permits are required but not limited to installation of greater than 32 square foot of T1-11 siding, removal and enclosure of an entrance door on the carport. One out of two violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall sent certified mail and was posted at the violation address on July 10th 2024 which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records book 22616, page 1902. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner and the owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case are ARES permit application 24-06002017 was made 628 June 28th 2024 and became ready for corrections on July 15th 2024. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on July 10th, 2024. Document 072424CEB and photo numbers one through four. The first photo is a screenshot from July 2022. Shows the way the home existed with the two trees that were in violation. The Indian Rosewood trees that have since been removed, that's this tree and this tree. It also shows in the carport the entrance that is in question. Second photo, it's a current elevation. Shows the trees have been removed which are in compliance. You can get a view of where the door was changed there. I'll show you one more photo of that. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. Sir, can you state your name and address for the record? Yes, I could afternoon. My name is Steven Scott. I'm a member of a Tampa Senate L.C. I just won three seats. I'm going to be the first to. Sir, can you state your name and address for the record? Yes. I could have your name in my name is Steven Scott. I'm a member of the Tampa Senate LC. I just won 369 Oakville Drive Brandon, Florida. Okay. Thank you. You heard the testimony. How much sounds like there's a permit in process? Yes, sir. We've applied for a permit working through that process and just a requesting additional 60 days to be able to complete I think the latest thing they wanted is a survey so we need to get that done and get it back resummeted. Okay. Okay. Based upon the evidence presented in this case I moved that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of flaw. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Tampa standard LLC to correct the violations within 60 days or by the date of September 22nd, 2024. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Second. Maybe we have a motion second. Questions? No call please. A sec this? Yes. Hensler? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ridley? Yes. Okay. You got your seat. Thank you. Good day. Next case. Item number 11, property owner, Svetlana Sapunjiva, and uh, of Svetlana Sapunjiva, investigator Bonnie Green. of Savannah, Sappuden, Jiva, investigator, Bonnie Green. Let me see that. Oh, there he is. Good afternoon. I'm Bonnie Green, Coates Investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number 11, case number 24-4720, regarding property located at 23750th Avenue North. I was sworn in at the start of this meeting. This property is a single family structure and is vacant. This is a code follow-up case. This is a code follow-up case. The property was first inspected on March 18th, 2024, and a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliant state of April 10th, 2024. The property was last reinpected on July 18th, 2024, and the following violations still exist. Accessory structure, it's the detached garage has peeling, chipping paint and or bare wood present at exterior walls or fascia soft fit. Accessory structure, the detached garage again areas of rotten wood present at fascia soft fit. present at Fasera Soffit. Accessory structure shed has a tarp on the roof indicating roof disrepair. Several areas of six foot fencing throughout property is in disrepair, leaning damaged and or missing parts. Permit is required for illegal unit present on property, which is the detached garage is set up as a rental living space, including kitchen appliances, stove, that type of nature there, and that would be it, that one, that, sorry about that. So three out of seven violations have been corrected, since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent to first class mail, posted at City Hall, sent certified mail and was posted at the violation address on July 8, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 215-81-Page-0233. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the owner prior to today, prior to today was July 18th, 2024. And the owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant facts are there is an in process demo permit on file. And as of July 1st, 2024, plan review notes are showing the permit is ready for corrections. I would like to enter into evidence as Exhibit One photos which were taken on July 18th, 2024, documents 071824720BG, photos 1 through 4. It's the front of the structure. There's two. This is the main structure here. And this is the garage that was converted into an apartment. This is the fascia on the garage area. There's a rotten wood peeling chipping paint. This is the rear area of the garage. There's more peeling chipping paint. And areas here in the exterior wall. This is the other structure that's a shed with the tarp on top there. And this is the Fencing and Disrepair. Several of the fence panels have already been removed, but there's still an area there that's in disrepair, several of the fence panels have already been removed, but there's still an area there that's in disrepair. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two and this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. So the demo permit is for what structure? For the garage, the tenant has moved out in in it's like two parcels I believe that that she's going to just remove the the garage and either sell the parcel or build on that parcel there. All right good afternoon can you state your name and address for the record please. All right. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and address for the record, please? Good afternoon, Sir Tlaanasupunjeeva. I address 4,000 Third Street North, apartment 301. Same Peter's birth, 3, 3, 7, 0, 3. OK. So can you give us a little on what's going on? Well, I expected this to be resolved by today, but it isn't. So the resolution of this case is through demolition. It's a double lot. One of the rental houses remains on Lord 25, Lord 26. Everything will be demolished, including the metal shed, the garage. The only thing that might stay is the fence or it might not stay. It's not a problem to repair it if it needs to. I have started this process immediately. I have done everything possible to do it as fast as I can. So I have action this through the property appraisal, zoning department issued a letter of the split in the parcel into two. Everything is allowed. The only thing that is dependent on is the demo permit being approved because the demo permit was filed like I don't know like a month ago or more. So there was a correction on the first of July and the correction was about the water shot off, the plumbing company needed to present a permit, which the demo contractor was not aware of. Actually, I followed this through and made him aware of this, and this caused the delay. Other than that, it should have been done by now. At this point, this permit was submitted probably on Friday last week. Today, I checked with the building department with the cold reviewer. Unfortunately, he was missing today. He will be back tomorrow. Gary Straits. So they assured me that the permit will be approved by Monday. So I need a little bit more time to get the permit approved. All that everything else will be done immediately. So I don't believe there'll be any complications. Now, you're giving me 20 days, you said? No, ma'am, we'll give you time. You're fine. No, we're going to give you time. I don't need much time, but because this is probably the last extension that I can get, and because it doesn't depend on me, but on institutions, but sometimes come up with surprises. So I would appreciate that. Thank you. So what's going to happen is we'll figure this out and we'll arrive at a number of days to allow you. But even if it goes over that, there's still another process that you can request more time if you need it. So don't worry about that part of it. The other part of it is once they issue the demo permit that puts all of this on hold since the demo permit will take care of all of these violations. Okay so your goal at this point is just to get the permit issued because that gets you out of this code's hot. Yeah, I realize that. Well, but that may happen in the generally way. Well, I'll read something. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigate, have not been corrected. The board orders, Svetlana, Sepajiva trust and Svetlana Sepajiva revulable living trust to correct the violations within 60 days or by the date of September 22nd, 2024, if this order is not comply with a fine of $150 per day. She'll be imposed. Second. OK. Got a motion second. Any other questions? Roll call please. A sec list? Yes. Hensler? Yes. Wait. Yes. Listen. Yes. Good life. Yes. OK, man. We've given you 60 days. So hopefully, good luck with getting that permit. OK. Thank hopefully good luck with getting that permit. Okay. Thank you. Next. Okay. Item 174, property. No, we have a couple of more. I see. We have like two more people in the audience. That's why I was asking because there were more. Just two more. Just two more. We were on the last page. Okay. We can make it. No, we've got were more. It's just two more. Just two more. We were on the last page. Oh, yeah. We can make it. No, we've got two more. Yeah, that's OK. Oh, good. We've got a position 45 in the position 47. Oh, you were hiding those. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. We're hiding them. Item 174, property owner Haven Isig. Investigators, the right of Melinda's. Good afternoon, I am Sir Redam Melinda's go investigator for the serious amphetus first as defined in reference to item 174, case number 24, 72, 17 regarding property located at 24, 34, Queen C's tree south. I was running at the beginning of this meeting. The property is a single home and is vacant. the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The recovery was last re-inspected on July 16, 2024, and the remaining solutions still exist. Exterior walls aren't disrepair, not properly maintained, or not in some condition, but not limited to bare wood in various areas of exterior walls. In interior walls, rap is in disrepair, or not secure in various areas, broken titles on exterior walls. There is sign of right-a-wold in various areas of the exterior walls. There is open holes in various areas of exterior walls. There is chipping and peeling, and or missing pain in various areas, including back stairs. Pain is missing on area securing boards. Exterior stairs in the back of the structure are in this repair, but not limited to the broken lattice was repair. The holes not installed properly, rails are in this repair we ready would the stairs landed is in this repair the stair fascia is in this repair the roof rafters are in this repair we ready would the light cover in the back stairs area is missing junk, junk doors, boxes, and other miscellaneous materials are stored throughout the front property and the back of the property. Two out of nine violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, posted a city hall censored by mail, and it was posted at the violation address on July 9, 2024, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Honor Chief was confirming official county records, book 204-695-0949. My last contact with the owner was on July 9, 2004, and there was no indication when this Valetion will be corrected. The department recommends 25 days in $150 for day they are after not in compliance. Additional revelant facts in regard to this case. There's a permit 1911001492. It just got reactivated but there's no work done. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is July 16, 2024, documents 7, 16, 24, 217, ZM, and its photos 1 through 7. So this is the front of the elevation. Before the doors was missing, so the doors are back up. And there's some, let me see the water proofing. Perhaps some of them was repaired because it was damaged, but we still have exposed wood and some of the others remains damaged. So, and as you could see, there's junk in the front of the yard. Also, he's a big keeper, so I didn't took a lot of pictures because there's the boxes everywhere. And this is another just front of the elevation. So this is the side where you could see some bearwood and you know more wrapping you know waterproofing paper that is covered with overgrowth. This is a stair that is in this repair. The poles aren't this repair and some of them are upright. There is an exterior wall where it's in this repair. This window just got broken because it wasn't like that. By the time of the reinspection, that window is broken and you see more right-of-wood on the back of the structure. And also, you can see here the on-light cover is missing. And there is more junk and overgrowth, there's, he keeps some of the on behalf here so I can, you know, I could not take better pictures. And that's another picture of the bag where you can see the base, the window covers are not painted and also all these ruptures are in this repair, righted and with missing paint. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence exhibit two and this will conclude my presentation. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and address for the record please? My name is Elizabeth Yoseg. My address is 2460 Quincy Street South in St. Pete. You're... Sorry, 337-1-1. No, that's fine. Thank you. And your relationship to Heaven? I'm his wife. His wife? OK. So can you tell us what's going on with this property? Sorry, it's really embarrassing. Because it's like the absolute ugliest house in town. Anyway, we bought it with the intention of moving into it because we live, we also own the house just three doors down. That's where we live now on Quincy Street. And anyway, it just, we got delayed in getting all the work done to the outside. So we're just needing more time. But believe me, we need it done. We need it done very soon because we're about ready to expand our families so more. So we need more space. And yeah, obviously it needs a lot aesthetically for sure. about ready to expand our families some more. So we need more space and yeah obviously it needs a lot aesthetically for sure. But yeah we'd like at least 90 more days if possible. Are you having a contractor? Are you hiring contractor to finish this? Well we just had a homeowners permit but like I told my husband we should probably see about at least some of it being done by a contractor because we just need to get it done quickly before I have the baby. It's an awful lot of work. It looks like it needs to be done. It is. Okay. Maybe a question for this. I should. Sure. So the permit's been reactivated, right? Yeah, it's not reactivated about what it's going to say. And there's no work. There's no evidence, but once there's evidence of work starting, does that put this on hold then? Like what is that? And how much work has to be evident for you guys to feel comfortable? Let's just say you give the 90 days and then we go back before the magistrate meeting to do our inspection. We see that work is progressed and it's continuing to progress. We will defer it from each of those meetings until either we see it stop for 90 days or it's finally completed. Okay. Okay. You got that? You understand, right? Yeah. That sounds great. I mean, I, I'm, yes, I'm going to push for it. I believe me. I mean, I, yes, I'm gonna push for it. I believe me. I want to end on. Our house right now is too small for our family and now we're gonna have four kids in a short amount of time. So yes, we need it done. Great. All right, see if we can reach up to it. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Haven M. S. Sieg to correct the violations within 90 days or by the date of October 22nd, 2024, if this order is not complied with a fine of a hundred and fifty dollars per day should be imposed. Second. Second. Any other questions? comments? Roll call please. A cyclist? Yes. Handslar? No. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ripley? Yes. Okay, ma'am. You've got 90 days as stated. If you get that permit and continue to show work. Yeah. I was under the impression that he did get the permit, but then they put it on hold. So I don't know if it automatically is active or what we need to do. The last time I checked it was at. Oh, OK. Good. All right. But you might want to verify all that yourself. Yeah, we will. Goodness, this is so amazing. I'm so glad I was like almost last because I did not want an audience to see how bad that house is. But if we get it done, you guys have to come and see it. It will be the most beautiful house. It will. It's not the worst we've seen. So. It's not the worst we've seen so good luck on the addition to your family And you do know this is televised right? Yeah public I don't know record. We'll send the link to your family. Don't worry Okay next case, please item 96 property owner, Renée, Aguero, investigator, Randy Alexander. She said 96? Yeah, 96. This is our last one, my dearest. Yes. Oh, she wins the prize. Yeah. 90. Ready? Hello, I'm Randy Alexander. Code investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item 96, case number 24, 6984. Regarding the property located at 2230 East Harbor Drive South. And I was sworn in at the beginning of this meeting. This property is a multifamily structure and it is vacant. This is a code's initiated case. The property was first inspected on April 19th of 2024 and the violation notice was sent to the owners with a compliance date of May 12th of 2024. The property was last re-inspected July 8th of 2024 and the following violation still exists. We have soft-fit screens and disrespaired. We're missing in multiple areas. We have rotted wood along and behind gutters in multiple areas. Two of the violations have been inactivated because I'm unable to actually get behind the gate, which was down, and I had access to see them before it. So we had to inactivate those because we could not get to them to actually confirm whether they were or were not rectified and Those violations are the vehicle that it was parked in the back of the property an Op vehicle as well as a hole that was in the back rear structure of the property So zero out of four these violations have been corrected since the beginning of this hearing. This hearing was sent, this notice was sent first class post city hall and certified mail and was posted on the violation, the violation address on July 8th of 2024, which was in the last 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed that the official booking page page number of twenty two six oh six page zero three two four. Doing the course of this investigation my last contact with the owner was prior to today was July 15th of 2024 and the owner did indicate that the violations would be corrected once she received the permit for this. Once her permits were approved for this, the department recommends 25 days at 150 days, 150 days after. Additional relevant facts was that permit that she was speaking that she spoke of, which is still in process. As of today, we did check it. The permit number 24, 010539, that permit was started back in January of 24th of 2024. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on July 18th of 2024. And this would be document number 071824984, RAC, R-A. And the photo numbers are number 416. This first photo, hold on a second. This first photo is just gonna be elevation of the property from the front corner. This second picture here is going to be of the softwares screens, just one of three of the softwares screens that are missing out or punched out on the property. This is going to be some of the siding that's with rotted wood that you'll see here at the bottom and alongside rotted wood here the side of the home. And some more disrepair rotted wood here as well as under the boards behind or behind the flashing. Just rotted holes that are there. You'll see just one display of this. This is just one display of multiple areas. This will conclude my presentation at this moment. OK. Thank you. And afternoon. Hi. Could you please state your name and address for the record please? I'm Kaelin Guero. The address is 2-2-3-0 East Harbor Drive South. St. Pete. I don't know. Is that where you reside? No. My husband and I are small local investors and we are hoping to renovate this. Okay, so we need your. Sure, now. Sure, now, Dred. Oh, my home address is 636-65th Streets Out, same P. Okay, thank you. Yes. Okay, so you've heard this testimony. How much more time do you think you need to get in compliance? The permits should be passed any day now. I was just sound in the permitting office today and it was just a small little air that was holding it up Which we fixed as of today so the permit should be passed and As soon as they're passed we should get started working. Is the motor vehicle gone? I'm sorry You had a oh Yes, that's gone It should be gone. I haven't checked today, but It was buried in there pretty deep, but I think we got it out. We bought the home in this condition, but we're going to make it look nice. OK. What's your intention for the home? Once you fix it up. Rent it out. Long term? Yes. Perfect. I need to see you back here for a short term rental. That was a trick question. Oh, okay. Yeah, it was a long-term goal. Okay. This is our first time doing this. It could be our last. We have. I'll read this. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I moved that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Renee Aquaro to correct the violations within 60 days or by the date of September 22, 2024. If this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. We have a motion in second and in the other. Roll call please. A sec list? Yes. Pinsler? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Ridley? Yes. OK, man. You have 60 days. Good luck with it. Thank you. Okay, we have the reading. Correct. Okay. Unfortunately, we can't. Here the other part. I know why I like you. I said I knew why I liked you because you're left handed. I knew you. Exactly. Now do you need to be sworn in? You have my set? I need to be sworn in. You need to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth? No, nothing but the truth. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to have a reading. Yeah. Right. Sure. You can read it at the end. I still see it. I'm just going to read it at the end. I still skip. Yeah, just because we already called them. Beginning or do I still call it? Yeah. You don't have to call it. I just want to show stage. Show me my... She's being there. Mm-hmm. You've got to go back. It's been a week. It's been a week. It's been a week. It's been a week. It's been a I have a number one. I have a number two. I am Angela Roberts. Code inspection supervisor for the city of St. Pete. Testifying in reference item number two. Case number two four dash seven five eight nine. Regarding property located at five one zero zero third avenue south. And I was sworn in at this meeting. The department recommends 25 days and 150 dollars per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. I'm going to the three's removed, and number four's removed. And number five, Carolyn P. Prinder, in Dustin K. Stanley. Case 24-5703 regarding property located at 801, 38th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and 150 dollars per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. 9. 6. Donnell P. Dames. Case 24-5938 regarding property located at 51038th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. 9. 7. 8. 8. 8. 8. 9. 9. and the number 9 is moved and number 10 Richard E. Martin. Case 2 4-2542 regarding property located at 218 southeast Jefferson Circle North. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet in evidence. Number 12 who removed and number 13 E and J woods. Case 2 4-3173 regarding property located at 545-48th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 15 has been closed and number 18 has been closed and number 19 has been removed and number 20 has been removed and number 21 and number 22 and number 23 is enclosed. Number 24 Jennifer T. Farm Farmery. Case 24-7541 regarding property located at 2314 tree lane drive south. Department of Reckon is 25 days in dollars per day. They're after for noncompliance fact sheet and evidence. And number 25 to Joe Freeman. Case 24-5912 regarding property located at 1618 21st Avenue, South. Department recommends 25 days in $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Fact sheet in evidence. Number 26 has been closed and number 27 has been removed. Number 28, Waenone opened in Maryland, Perkins. Phase 24-6411 regarding property located at 1-8000 Auburn Street South. Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. In March 29, it's been closed and March 31 has been closed and March 32 has been removed. In March 34, it's been closed and March 35 has been removed. In March 36, Lauren, real estate holdings. Case 24-5882 regarding property located at 545-78th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. I'm number 37, REM properties 1 LLC. Case 24-6525 regarding property located at 6800-1st Street North. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Fact sheet in evidence. End of 30, and my 39 has been closed, and number 41 has been removed. And my 42 has been removed, and my 43 has been closed. And my 44 has been closed, and number 45. Carried be, carried be, jolesto, gifting trust. Carried be jol, Beneficiary No. Case 246680 regarding property located at 3228, 11th Street, North. Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 46 is removed, or 47 is removed. Number 48 is removed, or 49 Janet Lynn is sent birth. Case 19. Dish 5064 regarding property looked at 12344 49th Avenue North Department recommends 25 days and 100 dollars per day there after for noncompliance fact sheet and evidence. Number 50 has been removed. I don't know if 51 Nicole and in to me and in and Anthony Reggae. Case 24-7056 regarding property located at 2250 64th Street North. Department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. In number 52, 54th Avenue East Realty Group. Case 24-6344 regarding property located at 570138th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for after for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 53, Adele Chocac. Case 24-6-836 regarding property located at 591933th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day that are after for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 54, Alvina Abbey. Case 24-5271 regarding property located at 947 James Avenue, South. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. I'm number 55, I'm number 56, I'm number 57. I'm close, I'm number 58, it's going to move. I'm number 59 family, dollar stores of Florida, Inc. Case 24-6254 regarding property located at 1041, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street South. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 60 is being removed. I'm a 61 Andrew Hitchcock. Case 24-7211 regarding property located at 950, 9th Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day they're after for non-compliance, fact sheeted evidence. Number 63 is enclosed number 65, EON LLC. Case 24-7213 regarding property located at 1301-123 South. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day they're after for non-compliance, fact sheeted evidence. Our number 66 has been closed, number 67 has been closed, number 68, Steven Norris, in Dale Way, Tremor. Case 2, 4-4016 regarding property located at 22014th Avenue North. Department recommends 10 days and $200 per day they're after for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. Area number 70, St. Petersburg, 4-101, L.O.C. ASE-24-4545, Regretting Department of State, located at 770, 4th Avenue, North. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. ASE-24-6066, Regretting Department of State, located at 3247, Fremont, Terrace South. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. I number 77 and number 78's been removed. I number 79's been closed. I number 81's been removed. I number 82, willing to say a state. Case 2, 3-21515, we're getting property located at 2951 Emerson Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days in $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 83 has been closed. Number 84 has been removed. Number 85 has been removed. Number 87 has been closed. Number 88 has been closed. Number 89 has been removed. Number 90 has been closed. Number 91 has been pure holding Zelloc. Case 2-3-19167 regarding property located at 2-3-6-21st Avenue, Southeast. Department of Reconments 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance, FACC sheet and evidence. I'm in 92. Are you in properties I be incorporated? Case 2-1-20377 regarding property located at 9-00, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. St. South. Department of Reconments 25 days and $200 per day. They're after for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 93 and 94 and 95's been closed. And 97's been closed and 98's. I don't remember 99, S-T-M-E-N-E-N, and Evan Dickerson. Case 24-4689, you're ready and property to look at it at 535-34 Dartmouth Avenue, North. Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day there after for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. I number 100 Kevin, Santa's Selva. Selva. Case 24-4469 regarding property located at 4 6 1 0, 18th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day there after for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. I number 101, trust number 5100, John Linhan, trustee., 4-6171 regarding property located at 5100 Fifth Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day there after foreign compliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 102, Christopher Dodge in Maryland, Dismaris. Okay, fair play. Case 2, 4-3904 regarding we're getting property located at 35353rd Avenue South, Department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. No, 103 has been closed. Number 104, Elizabeth M. Glut. I don't have 104. I believe that was deferred for a medical emergency. Uh, it was. Yeah. 104. I believe that was deferred for a medical emergency. That one is to okay I'll read it. I number 104. I don't know when 04 has been deferred. I don't know when 05 June 8, Johnston. Phase 2, 4-6, 4-7 regarding property located at 3620 or 8th Avenue, North. The Department recommends 25 days and $100 per per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet and evidence like Remove not deferred Sorry, I just don't just want to clarify for the record. I don't know one zero four. He's been removed city process I don't remember one zero six Jackie L and Connie L. Meyer Number 106, Jackie L. and Kanye L. Meyer. Case 2, 3-5473 regarding property located at 4121 10th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. In order, 1-07 Lauren Moten. Case 2, 4-6914 regarding property located at 3500 for 7 New South. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. Number 108 has been closed. Number 111, Ulta Corp, Trustee 2845, Lianchrest. Case 24-6036 regarding property located at 2845 23rd Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and 150 dollars per day there after for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. Number 114 has been closed. Number 115 has In number 114, it's been closed, in number 115, it's been closed, in number 117, it's been closed. In number 119, it's been removed, in number 122, it's been closed. In number 124, Nimbus, Apollo, LLC. It's 2-4-6-847 regarding property located at 1-9-0-0-16th Street North. The rubber recommends five days and $250 per day they're offered for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 125 is removed and number 126 will be in the Stullis. Phase 24-4818 regarding property located at 4408, 1E to way south. Department recommends 10 days and $200 per day they're offered for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 127 is removed and number 129 CTV here at ASLC. sevens were removed over 1.29 CTV, Paradise, LLC. Case 2, 4-7877 regarding property located at 4-718, Paradise Way, Southeast. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day they're after for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. And we're 130 lead branded Daniels. Case 2, 4-2433 regarding property located at 3928 Grove Street South. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 131, speed close number 132, speed moot, or 133, speed moot, or 134, speed moot. Number 135, Catherine Wilson. Case 24-87, regarding property located at 39th Avenue. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 136 has been closed and we're 137's removed and we're 138's removed and we're 139's removed and we're 140, Daniel G. Gary. Case 24-6604. Regarding property located at 4127 Harrisburg Street, Northeast. Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day there after for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 143 is made by 144 is made by 147 is made close. Number 148 is made close. Number 150 is C, NKFC, Harvard, LLC. A2, 4-6449, regarding property located at 844 and a half, 10th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. I remember 152, without any properties incorporated. Case 2, 4-5388 regarding property located at 618, 28th Avenue North. Department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. And number 153, Alex and Todd Roscan. Case 2, 4-5665 regarding property located at 88008th Street, North. Department of Reckonmin's 25 days and $150 per day they're after for noncompliance fact sheet and evidence. And on the 154 Jennifer Lynn Savage. Case 2 4-7141 regarding property located at 1 3 0 22nd Avenue, North East. Department of Reckonmin's 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. In number 155, we removed number 157's been closed. In number 159's been closed. In number 160, Mary Gold and Moss, LLC. Case 2-4-3734, regarding property located at 6-066, 17th Avenue, North. Department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. In November 161 Christopher, I'm sorry, in November 161 is going to be removed in November 162 Lawrence A and Margaret C. Myers. Case 24-6822 regarding property located at 3-010 82nd Wayne North. Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day they're required for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. In rule 163 it's been removed on 164. We're 167. We moved over 168 to close. 169's were moved over 170 ever Spogor Point LLC. Case 24-587-4 we're getting property located at 2540 Roy Hannah Drive South. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day they're after for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. Whatever 172's removed are 173 or open hard to state. Case 2, 4-6998 regarding property located at 4-650 Fairfield Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. Remember 177 Kevin Foynge. Case 2, 4-730 we're getting property property located at 4215 Fairfield Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Facts sheet in evidence. Number 179 is in close number 180, Edward Anthony Pat. Case 24-1702, regarding property located at 3443, 16th Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. Number 181's been removed. Number 182's been closed. Number 184, Jettavid Berger. Case 24-3714 regarding property located at 3998, 11th Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. Number 185 is being closed and that concludes the readout. I move that the board make the findings effect and conclusions of law as set forth in the standard written order of the board in each and every case just presented by the code's investigator and order that the compliance time frames and penalties as recommended be imposed for each case. Second. motion in a second. roll call. A checklist. Yes. Chancellor. Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Rubele. Yes. Okay. That concludes the July code and enforcement board meeting. We will now hear lean releases. Are we ready for that? We're ready. Okay. Welcome to the July 2024 code. Enforcement board hearing at this time we will hear the lean release requests. These are cases where a code enforcement lean has been certified in the property owner or their agent is now seeking release of the lean. We have received a written report regarding each of these requests. These cases will be heard as follows. The city code's compliance Department will announce each case with the address applicant case number and applicable leans. We hear testimony from the applicant regarding the request. We may ask any questions of either the applicant or the staff after hearing the testimony and answers to any questions we may do the following. Take no action, which will leave existing leans in place, or take affirmative action to direct staff to release the lien in its entirety, or release the leans in consideration of a payment of a specified amount of the lien within a specified period of time. Once heard by the Code Enforcement Board or Special Matters State, lien released requests will not be reconsidered by either entity for 180 days unless the property ownership changes. Roll call please. Wilson here. Hope. Snyder here. And so I. I'm here. Rooting. Wait. A secluded here. Rooting. Wait. Here. A secluded here. Rivlay. Here. Okay. So, we have a big agenda for lean release. We've got a big agenda. We've got one case. Big agenda. Thank you. Yes. We've got a big agenda. We've got one case. Big agenda. Thank you. Yes. We appreciate it. So if everybody's ready, we'll just go ahead and start. Yes. All right. First up, we've got LR first and only LR1. Property address is 3720, third Avenue North. Current owner is May built homes, LLC. The leans are associated with case number 21-24423, and they totaled on the amount of $37,000, $50, and they were for a permit violation. I'll double check, but I believe it was for installation of windows and doors without permits. Two out of four hearings were attended and just give a brief overview. The January notice of hearing that was addressed to the owner was returned and said it was not deliverable as addressed. Therefore, we posted the notice of hearing at the violation address on January 11th. There was a telephone message from Christina Longstreet and then we returned that phone call on January 20th. At the January 26th public hearing, the owner was at the hearing and they accepted the recommendation which was 25 days. Order of the board was, that was addressing the owner, was again returned. The March special magistrate hearing, there was no attendance, a lien was certified in the amount of $4,650. The April 27th hearing, there was attendance and an extension was provided by the magistrate for 120 days. That brought it back October 25th of 2022. There was no representation at that hearing. There was a lien certified in the amount of $32,400. That brought it back to November 15th hearing. There was no representation of that hearing. 45 day extension was provided. And then on December 27th of 2022, the case was closed. We have Christina Longstreet here to represent the property. And then the only other thing that I wanted to note for the board, just because this is a little bit unusual. Typically you can't apply for a lien release unless you have no other active violations at your property or active cases. So we do have an active case right now that is for short-term rental, but it has not moved forward because the violation was brought in a compliance and we're in a monitoring phase. Obviously, as you're well aware, with our short term rentals, that can change very quickly. So we've made a decision as a department to monitor those first certain period of time. So it doesn't necessarily mean that that property is in violation right now, but it is an active case. So I made the decision due to that being a unique circumstance with the way that we handle those cases, that I would still allow it to come before the board with there being an active case, but just wanted to bring it to the board's attention. You want me to read this for you? I'll see you now. Okay, all right, thank you. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and address for the record please? Yeah Christina Longstreet Do you want my personal address or the one on 9993 86th Street in Seminole, Florida 33777? Okay, and your relationship to maybe own the owner. You're the owner. Okay Have you been sworn in? I have not I have not. Okay. You swear or firm that the evidence you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So you've heard the testimony of the city. First of all, thank you for hearing my case. I appreciate it. I do have long term tenants in there now, and I can email over Lisa Grimance if it becomes necessary. So I would like to start that I purchased this property three years ago. I was just getting into, you know, buying real estate and it was my first investment property and I've learned a lot since then. Long story short, in 1995, the person who owned it converted the garage into a unit came to the city told them tried to get it permitted they said it's not permitted you can't do that he never turned it back into a garage it did not come up on the title search when I purchased the property so when I got a code violation for building an enclosure, I had no idea what that meant. Again, I was very new in this and I thought my GC would be able to help me out and figuring out what we needed to do. So I did rely on him a lot and hoping he had the expertise to kind of help me through this. I printed out some of the email communication that we had. As far as missing the hearing March 23rd, I assumed that permits were in progress. If it says that they're in progress, then you guys say, that's great, like we're all set. That was my fault. He sent me an email the day of the hearing saying that the permit bounced back. He sent it at 420 in the afternoon, so I missed that hearing and That's that's why I missed the March one. I did go to the second one as stated and Got the extension at this point this GC was not able to help me out and figuring out what the issue was So I hired somebody else to help me out and figuring out what the issue was. So I hired somebody else to help me. And this is the GC that did eventually get it to the finish line for me, which I'm very grateful for. But the meeting that I missed on October 25th, again, I have email communication. And this is with the department. Greg Foster was the code violation officer for this one. So he's included on these emails as well. So the hearing for October 25th, I got an email from my GC on October 18th saying, house is ready with a screenshot of the final payment permit, all of that. So I didn't go. Again, I, you know, less and learned, right? That's, you know, I don't want, you know, lessen learned, right? That's, you know, I don't want, I feel, I don't want to make it sound like they're excuses, but, you know, I've learned a lot over the past three years, and now every time I'm interested in a property, I come down here and I check, do my due diligence, make sure that there are no violations, no leans, nothing outstanding on the property because it took me two years to get this permitting done and I had to rewire the place, replum the place like it was quite the headache. And now I'm at the point where it's a $37,000 fine for missing these meetings and it's a big chunk of change for me to wrap my head around. So I'm hoping that you guys can hear my case and if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. So question if I can't share, sorry. Yeah, go ahead. So it sounds like you inherited something that was in violation. You didn't know about it, and then had to go through the process of bringing it into compliance, is that right? Absolutely. Yeah. And then how extensive, like how much money did you spend and how extensive was the work to bring this into compliance? Man, so... Maybe just give me the, give me the cliff notes version, this couple of sentences, like $12 a month and... Yeah, so... So maybe just gave me that give me the close notes version this couple sense is like total dollar amount And yeah, so much you had to redo in the at the listing It stated that it was a triplex that it was three units and maybe I need to have a separate conversation with the person who sold me this property at one point So I renovated But like all three units and then when I found out that I wasn't even allowed to have a unit there I had to rip everything out. So if you want to put a dollar amount on it, it was probably $40,000, $45,000 to get this into compliance plus not being able to rent it out during the time that it was under construction and then it was re-under construction again. I mean it was, I had to jump through a lot of hoops. And you still bought more properties? I know. I mean, they say entrepreneurs are crazy, right? So you have income coming in now? I do now. Yes. How many units are there? Two. So it's the front house and the 80s in the back. OK. Yeah. And your other five properties are in Pinellas County as well. Yes. There are rentals or yes all rentals. Long term rentals. Yes sir. Good answer. Yep. Three months minimum. I got it. I'm a quick learner. So when you got the first letter with the lien certification for $4,650, what was gonna be your plan? I don't remember receiving that, that lien amount. But if I did, I think I was just hoping to figure it out at the end because, you know, at that point, I was just trying to get through this project and I was hemorrhaging money. So. Okay, and which is your intention to keep this house and continue to run it? Yes, sir. You just want to clear this lean. Yeah, yeah. So in April of actually, I think it was April. Maybe it was 2023. I went down to the city and I pulled the permit and made sure that everything, I asked them to the city and I pulled the permit and made sure that everything, I asked them to print it out for me to make sure that everything was closed so that I didn't have any more issues. So it was a long journey, but I'm very happy it's over almost. And I asked a question unrelated to this case, but related to our properties. I don't think so, not properties. I don't think so. Not yet. Yeah, I think so. I mean, I just want to ask if there are any other properties in St. Pete and are those, can I ask that, or just got to stick to this? If they're what in compliance? Well, if they're air being being. They're being. Oh, well, there is, I mean, he's stated. It was just this. I know there was one, but she's got five. So, no, we would have checked. That was the only active case. That was the only one. OK. I can't become before us with this without any active. No, I was just wondering, because there was others. I didn't realize you had checked them all out. Yeah. OK. Thanks. I'm more than happy to answer It's not a short-term rental. Well, whether you can answer it, I was just making sure I could even ask it. Okay. On this specific case, I want to make sure that I can ask that question. Sure. Ariel. I'll make a motion. Okay. I move that in this matter, the lien, lien, be released in consideration of payment of $1,500 within 45 days. Second. Okay, we got a motion. Second, any questions? Okay. Role call, please. A checklist? Yes. Hensler? Yes. Wait. No. Wilson? Yes. Gribley? Yes. So we thought, so you have the, the amount of money that you have. No. Wilson? Yes. Ribbley? Yes. So we thought you have the ability to release this for a $1,500 payment within I believe 60 days. Okay. 45 days, excuse me. So you can either do that or the lean sustain. No, no, no, I'll get rid of it. So the other property that I own in St. Pete, we're closing on it tomorrow. So I extended the closing to get through this hearing. And that's how I found out about the lean. And I got here, so I really appreciate your time and consideration for all of this. And it'll be paid off tomorrow. So yes, thank you. Thank you. Is there? So I was going to divide something to the title company. He's going to get into something. No, that's fine. I can conclude. I do. I did it. Yeah, I did. We already do it again. That concludes. Hey, can you call the radio? Thanks for watching!