Welcome to the Newsmeard of Beach Code and compliance board meeting of August 15, 2024. The procedures of the hearing are to provide due process to every respondent and to the city in accordance with Florida State Statute 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 admissible but only to support other competent substantial evidence. Other evidence must be presented. Are there any questions to that? Any decision made today can be appealed by sending notice of appeal to Circuit Court within 30 days of execution of the orders per Florida State Statute 162.11. Oh, there he is. Ooh, he's in time. What'd you call the role place? Uh-huh, we'll give this a second here. Would you call the role please? Dan Coffer is excused absence Cliff Warren here Albert Shaman ski Aaron Dennis Kathleen Brown here Michael Slayton Absent and Ruth Kessameric is also excused Do we have any disclosure of X partake communications No All right has everybody read the minutes and I'll need Do we have a second. Do we have a second? Second. Clif Warren. Aye. Albert Schmansky. Aye. Aaron Dennis. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Motion carries. We'll have the swearing in of the staff now. Any respondents and witnesses? We'll have the swearing in of the staff now. And any respondents and witnesses? You would like to testify please stand and raise your right hand. State your full name. In the matter to which you're about to give testimony, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? The witnesses have been sworn in. Thank you. Let's start with all business. Our first old business is 730 South Duz. That has been withdrawn. Our next first new business is 3144 Sundance Trail. Shelly Friend with the city, so I'm going to present her cases for, in her absence. This case is for 31-44 Sundance, and this case is for 31-44 Sundance. So, in Shelley's absence, just so everyone knows, Shelley is no longer with the city, so I'm going to present her cases in her absence. This case is for 31, 44 Sundance Trail. And on May 9, 2024, the code compliance received a complaint regarding the house and the boat dock that was in this repair and also high grass and the tree had fallen. This case was presented at a previous hearing on July 18th, the property was presented to the code compliance board. The property had two remaining violations at the property which was 269-146 for accessory improvements and 269-148 landscaping. On July 18th, 2024, the board continued this case until August 15th, 2024 without finding any of the violations in noncompliance at that time. The board instructed the property owner to come back before the board on August 15th with information on the doc repair and to meet with the co-compliance officer regarding the landscaping prior to this hearing. The board order was mailed certified mail to the property owner and is still working its way through the mail system. The board order was also posted on the property on July 23, 2024. On August 13, 2024, property inspection was conducted and the property was found in compliance for Section 269148. The property has been mowed. I do have a picture to submit showing that the property was mowed. The property does remain in violation of Section 269-146 accessory improvements. It's staff's recommendation at the board, fine Mr. Tom Dross and or entity in violation of 269-146 and given till October 30, 2024 to obtain the permit to even care or demolish the dock and the event the property does not comply with the board order. I would recommend $100 per day fine until the property is in compliance and that the fine would not exceed the amount of $10,000. But this is basically really to have him present information that he was together in the last month and then you can make a motion based on what I just recommended after he presents. Do we have somebody that good come forward please? please. My name is Tom Dross, 3144 Sundance Trail and I just wanted to present evidence that I've been working on getting the doc repaired. I have a list here of the companies that I've been in contact with. So I've been contacting companies since September of last year and more recently I've contacted a lot more companies. So in total I've contacted eight companies. I've met with three different ones. I've gotten one estimate so far. I'm waiting on another estimate, and I'm waiting on phone calls back from the others. And if nothing happens from these, then I'll work on contacting other companies. So I'm just going through Google and trying to find local companies like Daytona and that kind of thing. Questions? So, you said that you did get an estimate from one of the companies, right? Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Have the others given you any indication as to the other one that looks promising? I just haven't heard back from them yet. It's been a couple of weeks now, so I'll probably do a follow-up phone call. So... Do you have any comments anything? Do I have a motion? I'll make a motion to accept the recommendation of Barbara. I'll second it. Is that El? Yeah. Okay, thank you. Cliff Warren. Aye. Al, thank you. Cliff Warren? Aye. Alchimansky? Aye. Aaron Dennis? Aye. Kathleen Brown? Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Um, October something I heard. Barbara, what was the date? What was the date? What was the date? The October 30th. Yeah, that's I thought. There are the respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify compliance with this order and also be aware that the respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days Any violation of same code by the respondent within five years from the date of this order She'll be treated as a repeat violation of which you find up to $500 per day may be imposed Thank you Sir, can you please sign in? Please Thank you. Sir, can you please sign in? Please sign in please. The next case 1300 North Dixie freeway has been withdrawn. The next case is 1418 South Riverside Drive. Shelly Friends the officer, Barbara, will like presenting. So this case is 1418 South Riverside Drive CCB-0426-2024. On July 18, 2024, the board found land, nugen and or entity in violation of IPMC section 302.8 motor vehicles and section 74-146 local business tax imposed. The board gave until August 8, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the board found the violations were not corrected by this date, a one-time fine of $250 for section 74-146 local business tax would be imposed and $25 per day for fine for IPMC 302.8 motor vehicles. The board order was mailed certified mail to the property owner and is still working its way through the mail system. The board order was posted on the property on July 19, 2024. Reinspection of the property on August 9, 2024, the inoperable vehicle remained on the property and no application had been submitted for the business tax receipt for the rental. On August 12, 2024, Chris, who stated on the phone that he is the son of the property owner, he contacted the code compliance office stating that the property is not rented, that his mother is out of the country and she has a caretaker stand in the back unit of the property. He also stated that he would be either removing the property, the vehicles from the property or making sure that there's put in and close structures so they're not in public view. So I requested that he send me an email stating that the property has not a rental property or have his mother send an email and also contact our office when the vehicles that either had current tags are been made operable. As of today, I have not received an email or any more conversation with Chris, the property owner's son. I did go down by there this afternoon. I have some pictures showing that the unoperable vehicles are still on site. I know when Shelley first opened this case, there was a gentleman living in the back unit and he was working on boats on the property I've been down by there with Shelley a couple of times. I have really not seen anyone around the back unit But also if you see in the pictures I would say that there's not a caretaker living on the property because the properties now starting to be overgrown There's the trailer is now there that's full of garbage. The vehicles have not moved at all. So my recommendation is for the board to impose a one time fine of $250 for Section 74-146 local business tax imposed and $250 for the IPMC 302.8 motor vehicles commencing on August 8th, 2024 and continuing until the property is brought into full compliance. Fine is not to exceed the maximum amount of $10,000. Any discussion? Just to clarify, you said that you were in contact with the woman's son, right? Yeah, he actually called the office and I spoke with him. And he did state that supposedly there's a caretaker living there, but I's I did request more information from him in the form of an email but no actual contact from from the property owner herself. No she's out of the country he said that I don't know if she has limited access to phone or email or whatever I'm not sure he just said that she wouldn't be able to contact, but he would send an email. I made sure that he had my email address. I repeated my email to make sure that he had it correctly. And as of today, I have not heard anything. And I did tell him that he could show up today for the hearing on behalf of his mom and state what he knows about the property. And it doesn't appear that he is here. I see, thank you. Just a question. I noticed some of the photographs that this four votes have been removed. So it's possible that the guy that was living in the back unit is gone. I do know there's still a lec brick and stuff back there. I have not verified whose name or anything that the utilities are in. Bar, I'm not sure I heard you correctly. What was defined for IPMC, three of 2.8, $25 per day? Any further discussion? I will motion. I make a motion except all of it's in a recommendation. Seconded. Cliff Warren. Aye. Alchimansky. Aye. Aaron Dennis. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. 27 Fairway Circle, 437 Booth Shell Drive. 405 North Dust Street have all been withdrawn. That brings us to new business. 20305 Arlington Drive has been withdrawn. 345 Corbin Park Road has been withdrawn. The next case we hear is 907 Hamilton Street. Jason Yates presenting. Good afternoon. This is 907 Hamilton Street, CE0518-24. The property is owned by our two single family residential. Violation cited or section 26-902 registration of vacant real properties and section 26-914-8 landscaping. On 624-2024, code compliance received a complaint regarding that the property was vacant and that the guard is not being maintained. On 627-2024, an inspection was conducted and the property was founded by the state of the state. The property was vacant and that the garden is not being maintained. On 627, 2024, an inspection was conducted and the property was found to be in violation of section 26-902 and section 26-914-8. On 799-2024, a notice of violation was posted on the property with the initial compliance date of 723, 2024. A copy was also mailed certified mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on 713, 2024 at 1056 AM. On 813, 2024, follow-up inspection showed that the property is still in the same state it was dating back to the date of the initial complaint. And so staff's recommendation to the board to find Joseph and Bethany Cardillo and or entity in violation of section 26-902 and section 26-914-8 and given until 826-2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, his staff's recommendation to oppose a fine of $25 a day per violation until the property is brought into full compliance. Find not to exceed $10,000. The date discussion. I'm sorry, the date that you just said to bring into compliance. Could you repeat that? Sure. The new date that I'm looking for is 826. 82024. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. And actually I correct, I actually just went by the property just a few minutes before coming here. So I actually had it written down here as 813, but I just went by and it's still in the same state. So just to have it for the record. I believe there's somebody here to speak also. My name is Vicki McCart. I'm the neighbor who filed the complaint and I think you said June 24th, 624. And I would just like to say that it was in this state long before I called and complained. And in fact, I didn't really know I could call and complain. A locksmith suggested I do it. I had to have a locksmith. And one of my neighbors mode the front yard once, but it's all overgrown again. And I hope that this committee brings, I don't know, resolution to the issue. I'd like to have some nice neighbors in this house. I used to have a nice neighbor there, and she got too old to live there, and the house was sold, and it's just been sitting there vacant since last fall. And I don't want you guys to think that nobody is concerned and nobody cares what's going on in the house and extort them because I certainly do. And that's why I came here just to say, hey, I felt the complaint. And I just wanted to let you know that I'm concerned about what's going on or what's not going on next door to me. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to also mention I've had no correspondence. I've had no contact with anybody about this property. So just besides a squiggle as a signature when they received a certified mail that was it. Any further discussion? I have a motion. I make a motion except the vote. I'll make a motion and did someone second? I'll second it. Thank you. Cliff Warren. Aye. Albert Schiminski. Aye. Aaron Dennis. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Albert Schiminski. Aye. Erin Dennis. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Motion carries. That concludes the cases that we'll bring forward today. I should read this last paragraph again. 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 same code by the respondent within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation, but a fine up to $500 per day may be opposed. That's it. Unless someone has discussion or staff reports, I don't see there is nothing more. No. I have a third document here for Hamilton Street. I probably didn't pull it. Okay. I didn't sign it. Okay. Yeah, there should be only three. So there's four on this one. Cindy, one is our next meeting. Our next meeting is September 19th of this year. And as there's no further business, I'd declare this meeting adjourned.