Thank you. the all this meeting to order. Dan, before we get started, I'd just like to welcome our newest board member, Keith McWilliams. Thank you for your service. Nice to have you here. Thank you. The NSP Code Compliance Board had made 22nd, 2025. The procedures of the hearing are to provide due process to every respondent and the city in accordance with the Florida State Statue 162.073 which states formal rules of evidence shall not apply but fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceeding. Here say is a missile but only to support other competent substantial evidence. Other evidence must be presented. Are there any questions? Any decision made today can be appealed by sending notice of appeal to the circuit court within 30 days of the execution of the orders per Florida state statute 162.11. Can we have roll call please? Yes. Let it be noted that Clifford Warren and Aaron Dennis are absent today. Dan Coffer. Here. Al Shamanski. Yeah. Aaron Dennis. Sorry, absent. Kathleen Brown. Here. Ruth Harris. Here. And Keith McWilliams. Here. Does any board member have any disclosure of any exparte communicationsa communications? No. For the record, there are none. And that each member have a chance to approve the minutes of the April 17th, 2025 meetings. And if so, can I have a motion to accept? So move. I'll second. Dan Koffer? Aye. Al Shmansky. Kathleen Brown. Ruth Harris. Keith McBoyams. Aye. And can we have the swearing in of city staff, respondents, and any witnesses that may testify before us today. Please stand and raise your right hand. In the matter to which you are about to give testimony, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? The witnesses. The witnesses have been sworn in. Okay. First case. First case is 2631 Brookline Avenue. Officer John Parks presenting. Afternoon. Afternoon. The address is 2631 Brookline Avenue. Sorry John. Would you mind just pulling the microphone a little bit closer? Sure. Appreciate it. It's usually not a problem for me. Address is 2631 Brookline Avenue, case number CCB 0657-2024. This property is owned by two single family residential. Violation is cited with 26-171 permits required and section 74-146 local business tax imposed. On March 20, 2025, the board found Terry Lee, Lander, Jr., and or entity in violation of 26-171 and 74-146 and gave until May 9, 2025, to bring the property in the full compliance. If the board found the violations were not corrected by this date, a fine of $50 per day, four violation of 26-171 shall be imposed for each day of the violation exists. The finding of a noncompliance for the BTR would be a fine status only no fine. The board order was mailed certified mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on March the 24th, 2025. The board order was posted on the property on March 24th, 2025. As of May the 12th, 2025, an application for a pool and decking has been submitted. However, the status is stated as fees do and there is a recent middle required for further information. Additionally, there is no application for permits for the driveway improvement extensions or the shed. It is staff's recommendation the board imposeifying a $50 per day commencing on May the 9th, 2025 for violation of Section 26-171 and continuing to the properties brought in the full compliance, find not to exceed the maximum amount of $10,000 of finding of noncompliance for the violation of Section 74-146 with no fine. Any questions among the board members? John, is the hallmower doing the work there or is it contract? Unknown who actually did the work because there hasn't been communication. When I, the only communication I've actually had with anyone at the property was when I first dealt with the property. And when I was talking to the original person who met me at the property, I asked, you know, are you the homeowner? And he said, no, I'm the renter. And I said, okay, well, there's some issues with the property. And I filled him in since he said he is the renter, he's the resident. He never stated while telling the landlord or anything or anything such as that. Based upon that conversation, it'd be in a renter. That's the reason for the BTR, the business tax receipt. However, sometimes your gut instincts tell you also that this person might not have necessarily been telling the truth and just didn't want to admit that he was the owner because unfortunately I'm someone he doesn't really want to talk to. So therefore even though he said he's the renter, I just feel that a noncompliance on that part of the BTR violation would probably be the best. That way in the event that there is a renter situation, we could always look at something from a repeat violation, but I don't think that we should impose any kind of fine on that. That's my reason for my recommendation, because my evidence on that is really be honest, little weak on that, it's just a verbal. But as far as communication, though, there's been no communication, contractor, none aware. Like I said, there is an application in the system, but it's literally an application in the digital format only. And the next step would be paying the fees that are attached and those fees have not been attached. And there's already been a recent mental required put on in that. So as soon as the fees are paid they still need to resummit paperwork in order to get the permit rolling. And it's only for the pool deck. It's not for the driveway extensions or the shed. Okay, back here. Yep. You said mail was sent in sign four? Mail was sent in sign four. Bye. We have to look at the minute and I'll see you with the. Thank you. Sure. I mail. It doesn't indicate, let me show you what it shows. It's literally a signature that it really does. It really does indicate- It's an answer to my question. Thank you. Whether it's the, it could be the renter, it could be- It could be a dog. Anyone can- It's a signature It meets the Postal Alpha Standard, so it meets our standards. Do I have a motion? I make a motion to follow through with his recommendation. I'll second. Going back to May 9th. That's great. Thank you. I'll second it. Dan Copper. Aye. Al Shmanski. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Ruth Harris. Yes. Keith McWilliams. Aye. The motion carries. Thank you. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify the compliance with this order and to also be aware that the respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondents within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which a fine up to $500 may be imposed per date may be imposed. Next case. Next case is 431 Sheldon Street, Officer Barbara Probellock presenting. Good afternoon. So this case was originally presented on April 17th, 2025 to the board. I have some pictures that I've taken since the case was originally presented somewhere from May 16th. There's one from today and there's also some from May 19th. On April 17th, 2025, the board found PGSR holdings LLC and or entity and violation of city code sections. Section 2691413, outdoor storage. 26914, for exterior windows and doors. 26914, five exterior attachments. 26914, sixth, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, blocking trash cans and recyclable materials blocking the sidewalks. So, and the date given for compliance was May 8, 2025. The board order was mailed certified mail on April 18, 2025 and was delivered to PGSR holdings on April 22nd, 2025. The property was also posted on April 28th, 2025. The re-inspection of the property on May 19th, 2025 showed that property being compliance of sections 26 9 14 13456789 and section 66-3634 and 6. It's my recommendation that the board find PGSR Holdings LLC and or entity and violation of sections 26 914 136789 and 66-36 subsections 34 and 8. In violation from May 8, which was the compliance date given by the board until May 18, 2025, and to impose a fine of $20 per day for each violation totaling of fine of $2,000. And also fine section 26-36 sections two and six to remain in violation and impose a fine of $20 per day per violation commencing on May 18th, 2025, until the property is brought into full compliance. Find not to exceed $15,000. Any questions? Yeah, is there going to be any communication with the owner? No communication at all. I actually, when I came into work on the 16th, the Amber, a code and compliance officer works on Sundays, and she's like, you're not going to believe it, but you need to walk out back and look at your property. So over the weekend, that weekend, someone actually showed up there and was cleaning up. It compared to what it was, it looks amazing. But they do still have the trash cans in public view. They have some kind of little cart out there, block in the sidewalk,'s actually pom prongs there today blocking the sidewalk along with the garbage can that's never been removed from public view. They did open up the one side gate, you can see back in there where they did actually clean the back of the property up as well. Where the stuff went, I have no idea. But it looks amazing compared to what it looks like over the several past months. I have never heard anything from a property manager, a property owner, or anything at all. Thank you. Any other questions? And just for the record, there are no members of the public here this evening to respond or for any public comment. Do we have a motion from the board? I still may have except the bookbomb I said if she can repeat that because that was a whole mode. Okay. Do you want to repeat your recommendation? Sure. So I'm recommending that to find PGSR Holdings LLC and or entity in violation of sections 26914, 1314, 56789 and section 66-36 subsections 3, 4, and 8 The violation from May 8th, the compliance given in the board order, 2025 until May 18th, 2025 until opposed a $20 per day per violation fine. That's a total of 10 days and the fine would total $2,000 for those sections. And also, find section 66-362 and 6 remain in violation and pose a fine of $20 per day per violation commencing on May 8th, 2025, until the properties and full compliance. I make a motion to accept the report. Do we have a second? I second. Dan Crawford? Aye. Al Schm Schmansky. Kathleen Brown. Ruth Harris. Keith McWilliams. Motion carries. Thank you. The respondents are furly ordered to contact the code and expect to verify the compliance with this order and to also be aware that respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondent within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which a find up to $500 per day may be imposed. Next case. Our next case is 2502 Arlington Avenue. Officer Jason Yates presenting. Good afternoon. This is case number CC B0073-2025. On March 20th, 2025, the board found Robert Ayers and or Entity and Violation of Section 26-171A required and gave until May 8th, 2025. the bill. The bill was billed by the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board order was mailed certified mailed to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on March 23rd, 2025 at 12.37pm. The board order was posted to the property on March 25th, 2025. To date, no permits have been applied for, even after multiple conversations with Mr. Robert Ayers. It's staff recommendation to the board to impose a fine of $50 a day commencing on May a 2025 and Continuing until the property is brought into full compliance find not to exceed the maximum amount 10,000 Any questions among the board members Do we have a motion so move except the have of this report? Do we have a motion? So move. Accept the ev'ovesis report. Do we have a second? Dan Copper. Aye. Alstromanski. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Ruth Harris. Yes. Keith McWilliams. Aye. Motion carries. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify compliance with this order and to also be aware of the Responds have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days Any violation of the same code by the respondents within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which a find up to $500 per day may be imposed. Next case. Thank you. Thank you. Our next case is new business. It's 999 B Street, Officer John Parks presenting. The address is 999B Street, case number CCB 0888-2024. Property is zoned R2 single family residential and the violation cited is 26-171 permits required. December 13, 2024, while posting an order at the property for a previous case involving permit violations, I observed that siding was being installed. A check of the permit system found no application for siding permit. The property was found to be in violation of 26-171. On January 29, 2025, a notice of violation was posted on the property with initial compliance date of March 7th, 2025. A copy was also mailed, certified, mailed to the property owner and was returned uncleaned. On May the 12th, 2025, a check of the permit system found no application for a siding permit. It is staff's recommendation, the board find Christopher Andrews, Weirnd and Rebecca and Tinsley, and our entity in violation of 26-171 and given to June 30th, 2025, to bring the property and the full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, his staff's recommendation to impose a fine of $75 per day until the property is brought into full compliance, maximum fine not to exceed $10,000. I have a copy of the previous order where they were found in violation of 171, 26171 permits That's the one that I was actually posting at the time that I observed Then putting the signing on there so But in fairness, I didn't feel would be right to bring them back immediately as a repeat violation even though I could have, but that's my reasoning also for $1.75 fine versus a $50 fine is because there's a copy of the board order of the case that I was posting at the time that I observed the violation. So, I'm sorry to say, but my question is, is there something that they didn't understand the first time? So, did I hear you say that the complaint state was going to be June 30th? Again, I'm trying to give every reasonable effort and you'll notice that a lot of my other cases that are involving building permits are giving that as a compliance state so again I'm trying not to signal them out or penalize them for previous situations I'm trying to be fair across the board for all my recommendations but my recommendation as you know, is a lot of times for residential property that people were residing in is only $50 unless there's extenuating circumstances. This time I believe that 75 was be a little bit more reasonable. The early reason I said is because then June 30th, we don't have a July meeting. So then we wouldn't see it till again till August. But June 30th, you'd actually see it in July. We don't have a hearing in June. Oh, is it June? Right, yes. No problem, that's fine. Sometimes we get... Yes, sir. And again, it would give... It gives more time for someone to probably bring property and compliance and that's our goal is compliance Compliance with the original thing now notice other thing are they gonna bring everything everything at the point at this time. You give them a big ISIS. We're hopeful. Again, we hope that we have already extended a lot of opportunities to people before we ever get to the point that we actually bring it to a hearing. Unfortunately, the hearing is one of those tools that we utilize for compliance when people have a tendency to be a little stubborn or have other situations going on. So again, we try to give benefit of the doubt and treat people as fairly as possible across the board. So that's the reason why. But the board is more than welcome to impose anything that they desire in these situations within, obviously, their limitations. that just explains my mindset on it. Yes, ma'am. And if they don't, the July 17th meeting, we're going to go back to retroactive to June 30th, right? My recommendation would be that the compliance date's going to be June 30th. And in the event that there's still no application, no permit and everything, it would not by bring this back to the board. My recommendation at that point in time will be to impose that $75 fine beginning on June 30th. We have a motion. So move. Sorry, the motion to accept staff's recommendation. Yeah, don you. I'll accept the office's recommendation. Second. Okay. Who was second? Sorry. Dan Copper. Aye. Alchemynski. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Ruth Harris. Yes. Keith McWilliams. Aye. Motion carries. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify compliance with this order and to also be aware that the respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondents within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which a fine up to $500 per day may be imposed. Thank you. Next case. Next case is one Cunningham Drive. Officer John Parks presenting. The address is one cutting him drive case number CCB-0113-2025. This property is owned by our two single-family residential and the violation cited is 26-171 permits required. On February the 28th, 2025, while conducting a site visit at a neighboring property, I observed a new wooden post column had been installed. A check of the permit system found no permit for the column and there is an expired fence permit in the system. The property was found to be in violation of Section 26-171. On March 7th, 2025, a notice of violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of April 25th, 2025. A copy was also mailed certified, mailed to the property owner, and was signed for and accepted on March 10th, 2025. On May the 12th, 2025, a check of the permit system found no application for a permit and the fencing permit is still in an expired status. It is staff's recommendation, the board find Sandra and Richard Landis and Oriented to the Invilation of Section 26, dash 171 and give until June the 30th, 2025, to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, his staff's recommendation to impose a fine at $50 per day until the property is brought the full compliance maximum fine, not to exceed $10,000. Any questions? You said a fence permit is expired, is what's the? Is it up? The fence has been. It's actually in it. It never took a permit. Well, they did take a permit. It's actually a previous case. I do not know the exact status of the case, but there was a code enforcement case. I don't know if there was ever an order or not. I didn't feel the need to come at a repeat. I didn't want it to treat it like a first offense type thing. But there's a permit that was applied for that was an after fact permit for the fence. The fence is still erect. The fence is still there. The permit is expired. No actions been taken. Therefore, it's avoided permit and that aspect has no status. It's expired. And this violation of the permit is for the post? This is for the post that is actually, you'll notice in the picture, it is a front post of the hangs that there's an overhang over the door and it's a fairly good size overhang so it's a support post. We would hope that it would be structurally. there's an overhang over the door and it's a fairly good size overhang so it's a support post We would hope that it would be structurally safe and not Be weakened where it would collapse and be a dangerous. That's one of the big reasons why it would be a permitted item Perfect you answered it Any other questions? Can we have a motion? I make a motion to the staff's recommendation. Thank you. Dan Koffer. Aye. Al Shamanski. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Ruth Harris? Yes. Keith McWilliams? Aye. Motion carries. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify a compliance with this order and to also be aware that the respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondents within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which a find up to $500 per day may be imposed. Next case. Our next three cases have been withdrawn. They are 637, UBON Avenue, 607, UBON Avenue, and 1811 North Peninsula Avenue. So our next case is case CCB 0110, officer John Parks presenting. This is going to be a unique case in the aspect that it is a confidential person who's protected under Florida State Statue. As such, there has been concern of the address being a protected as well, so it's confidential. So I will only be referencing it by the case number at this point in time, and I will be using some neutral descriptors as we can for it. And I'll explain where and what if there's questions afterwards. The case number is CCB-0110-2025. This property is zoned R2, single-family residential. The violation cited is 74-146 local business tax imposed. On February the 25th, 2025, co-compliance received a complaint regarding the property being listed for rent on a short-term rental basis in violation of the zoning and they had no BTR. On March this 19th, 2025, it went to the property and did not observe any cars. There was a package at the front door indicating that someone appears to be staying at the property. A check of the listing on the internet indicates that a four-night stay is bookable. A check of the BTR system found no BTR issued for the property. An email was sent to the property owner advised into the violations. On April 2nd, 2025, a notice of violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of April 22nd, 2025. A copy was also mailed certified mail to the property owner and was returned marked, returned to sender. On several dates, internet bookings were started indicating that short-term rentals were available and that the property is being listed for rent. Emails have been sent to the property owner of IZON of the violations. Continued checks of the listings indicate each time that the property is rental property for rent. On May the 12, 2025, another attempt was made that showed the listing active and indicated that it is that the property is rental property with no BTR issued for the or applied for. It is staff's recommendation the board to find Amber Hebert also known as Amber, and our entity in violation of section 74-146 and give until June the 30th of 2025 to bring the property in the full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, his staff's recommendation per Florida statute, 205.053, a one-time fine of $250 being posed for operating without a BTR. We're only looking at the BTR issue is the violation, even though there was an appearance of short-term rentals. I don't feel that I have enough evidence at this time to present for short-term rental violations. So that's the reason why that's not cited. That would be another case at another time. But there is clearly no BTR and the property is being advertised on the internet. Forerent and clearly the owner knows it and is defined. Any questions? From board? Do we have a motion? I make motion to accept your questions. Congratulations. And could we just have the second verbally? But no one else is here. Where are you today? Dean Copper? I. Alstromanzki? I. Kathleen Brown. Ruth Harris. Yes. Keith McWilliams. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify the compliance with this order and also be aware that respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by their respondents within five years from the date of the store shall be treated as a repeat violation of which will find up to $500 per day may be imposed. Our next hearing date will be July 17, 2025. Are there any discussion among the board members? Then I will adjourn the meeting then. Thank you. We can go home. Yes. That's it. Thank you. Can we have a link? Thank you.