you and the NSB Compliance Board of September 19, 2024. The procedures of the hearing that to provide due process to every respondent and the city in accordance with Florida State Statue 162.073, which states formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceeding. Here's a missal vote 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 setting notice of appeal to the circuit court within 30 days of the execution of the orders per floor to state statute 162.11. Can we have roll call please? the orders per floor to state statute, one six two dot one one. Can we have roll call please? Dan Koffer. Here. Cliff Warren. Here. Albert Shamanski. Here. Aaron Dennis. Here. Kathleen Brown. Here. Michael Slighton. Here. Ruth Kessamerica's excused. Okay. Does any board members have any disclosure of any ex- exparte communications? For the record we have none And has everybody had a chance to look at the minutes from the August 15th, 2024 hearing and it's so do I have a motion to accept so move second Dan cofferfer. Yes. Cliff Warren. Aye. Albert Shamanski. Aye. Aaron Dennis. Yes. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Michael Flayton. Yes. Motion carries. Can we have the swearing in of any city staff, respondents, or any witnesses that may testify in front of us today? Please stand and raise your right hand. State your full name. In the matter to which you are about to give testimony, do you swear or refer to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? The witnesses have been sworn in. First case. First case is 907 Hamilton Street. Jason Yates is the officer, Barbara Bobolek presenting. Good afternoon. I'm presenting in Jason's absence and, 2024, and it was heard on 815, 2024, and the property owners were found in violation of Section 26-902, registration of vacant real properties, and Section 26-9148 landscaping, and was given until Augustth, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the board found the violations were not corrected by this date, a fine of $25 per day per violation shall be imposed for each day the violation exists. The board order was certified mail to the property owner and was unclaimed and returned to the city. The board order was posted on the property on August 19th, 2024. Today, nothing has been done at this location. I visited this property this morning with Jason. The property has not been mowed. We have not received the vacant property registration. So I'm recommending that the board impose a $25 per day per violation commencing on August 26th, 2024 and continue until the property is brought into full compliance and the fine shall not exceed a maximum of $15,000. Any questions? Some moved. Snacken. No question. Thank you. Second. Dan questions. Second. Second. Dan Cawfer. Aye. Cliff Warren. Aye. Albert Schmansky. Aye. Aaron Dennis. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Michael Slayton. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. 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 year and date will be October 7th, 18th. Next case. You don't have to say next hearing date, that's just FYI. And everyone be sure and speak into your microphones. The next case is 1507 Palmetto, Beverly Abramson presenting. Good afternoon. Case number CCB002262024 is for 1507 Palmetto Street, the property of zone R2, single family residential. The violation side of section 74-146, local business tax imposed. On May 15, 2024, the board found money sunk LLC and or entity in violation of Section 74 to us 146 local business tax imposed and gave until 1 p.m. June 13, 2024 to bring the property in full complete Board found that the violation was not corrected by the state. The co-compliance board would consider setting a fine and lean on this case at the July hearing. That case was continued to this hearing. The board order was mailed certified mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on May 20, 2024. The board order was also posted on the property. on May 20, 2024. The board order was also posted on property on May 16, 2024. I also sent a copy of the board order to the respondent on July 10, the email. As of July 17, the city is still waiting for the right one. Yes, still waiting for additional information to be submitted. Money Sunk LC is not registered with the Florida Division of Corporations. The property owner lives out of state and he has promised that he will get his inspection scheduled. and he has promised that he will get his inspection scheduled, come October 1st, therefore I would recommend to continue this case to the set, that's today, to the October hearing. Yes. Any questions from the board? How long is this case going on? What was the beginning violation? Did you say May? Or did I miss here? Yes. May 15. And you have only heard from once since May? Well, what happened was the guy, the property has not been occupied. It has been vacant this whole time. He apparently only rents the house out from October to December to the same family from up north. When he filed the paperwork, he had his, I'll see, was registered in a different state. So when he filed for the business tax receipt, they told him he needs to get it registered here with Florida. So when he applied, somehow or another, the paperwork got misplaced through the fault of the son-bez. They sent an email and he had sent me a copy of the email where they said that they had taken a long time and could be. So anyways, it really wasn't his fault. He tried to get the applications submitted and he said that since he is out of state, he has to find somebody to go in and be at the property when he has the inspection. So we're just waiting. He said October 1st, someone will be there and we can go and do our inspection at that time. Thank you So the applications and it's just We need a motion to postpone this Yes, the continuance until the October hearing Who said the move me you said the second right? Okay, that's what it's looking for. Thank you. Dan Koffer. Yes. Cliff Warren. Aye. Al Shamanski. Aye. Aaron Dennis. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Michael Sighton. Yes. Motion carries. The respondents are further ordered to contact the code and expect to verify compliance with this order. It's also be aware that the respondents have to rate to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondent within five years from this date of the order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which will find up to $500 per day may be imposed. Next case. Our next case is 2640 Brookline Avenue, Beverly Averton presenting. Case number CCB 0311-2024 for property at 2640 Brookline Avenue. On July 18, 2024, the board found Ida M and Ronald E. A. Maker and or entity and violation right of way, IPMC 302.1 sanitation, IPMC 303.1 for swimming pools, 303.2 for enclosures, 304.3, premises identification, 308.1 for accumulation of rubbish or garbage. And gave until September 1, 2024, 1pm to bring the property into full compliance. If the board found that the violations were not corrected by the state, find in the amount of $10 a day for Section 66, 32, $75 a day for IPMC, 303.2, 5050 a day, so on. For IPMC 303.1 and $25 a day for violation of each of the remaining violations, shall be imposed for each of the violations that exist. As of, except while this morning, I did a re-inspection. The board order was mailed certified mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on July 22, 2024. The board order was also posted on the property on July 23, 2024. I conducted a re-inspection on August 15 and found that the shed is gone. So that complies section 26-171A. Today I found that section 70-5, objects and obstructions in the public right away has also been complied. Therefore that really remains the rest of the violations to be found in violation is section 66-32 placement containers for garbage collection at an amount of $10 a day. IPMC 302.1 sanitation for $25 a day, IPMC 303.1, swimming pools $50 a day, IPMC 303.2 enclosures $75 a day, IPMC 304.3 premises identification for $25 a day, and IPMC 308.1 accumulation of garbage and garbage for $25 today. On my violations, I've re-did the inspection today. Those violations still exist, therefore it is my recommendation to impose the fines and continue set the fines until the property is brought in full compliance with a fine not to exceed the maximum amount of $10,000. Have you had any communication with them in the last month? No, they came in to the hearing. They were here at the hearing. They never contacted me since. It looks like they're trying to clean up, But when they got rid of the shed, all the stuff I guess that was in the shed came outside as well. So they cleaned up the stuff in the right away. That's out of the way. But there's still stuff that needs to be hidden somewhere. No, cleaned up from being outside. Any other questions from the board? Would you recap the proposed fines? So I'm going to go back to the other other other other questions from the board. Would you recap the proposed fines? Yes. Okay. So it's going to be $10 a day for section 66-32. Do you want the ordinance right out as well? No. Okay. So $ dollars a day for IPMC 303.2 $50 per day for IPMC 303.1 and 25 dollars per day per violation for each of the remaining violations not to exceed $10,000 That's like $160 a day. I think it's a little somewhere around there. Somewhere around there. Yeah. $210 I think is what my math comes up to. Two 10. Yep. $210 a day. Okay. Per day until the violations come into compliance. It's a German I move to impose the fines. I'll second that. Dan Coffer. Aye. Cliff Warren. Aye. Al Shamanzki. Aye. Aaron Dennis. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Michael Sleighton. Yes. Can I ask one question? Yeah. Are you going to keep track every day? I mean, so if he gets his $10 fine out of the way, that goes away. Well, they have to contact me to let me know when the violations are complied. That's what the order said. Yeah. But I do drive by often, so I'll keep an eye on how. Just for the record, it's in the order that they, in the order it states it is to respond and to burden to request a Reinspection to determine which compliance is achieved after the data was ordered That way it's not on her right The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify compliance with this order and To also be aware that respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondents within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which you'll find up to $500 per day may be imposed. Next case. Our next case is our first new business. It is $38.37 on court, Beverly Abramsome presenting. I don't like having these things in the afternoon. I get all confused. My brain works much better in the mornings. Okay. This case is ccb-0523-2024. Property location is 3837 sandstone court. Zoning is R5 multi-family residential. On May 31, 2024, while in the area conducting routine inspections, I observed new payers along the driveway and into the rear yard. When I returned to the office, I found no permit in the system. I generated an email to cursing of this. The property was found to be in violation of Section 72-171A permits required, and Section 72-142 penalties for work commencing before permit issuance. On July 25th, a notice of violation and notice appearing was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of August 15, 2024. A copy was also mailed, certified mail to the property owner and one to the registered agent listed on the SEMBIS website for the active LLC. Both were signed for and accepted on July 29, 2024. There has been a steady flow of conversation between all parties involved on July 29, 2024. An application for a permit was submitted for replacing the pavers and it is going through the review process at this time It appears that the gentleman has Submitted everything or the contract or should say has submitted everything. It's just waiting on the staff city staff to reveal it It is my recommendation that the co-compliance board find oscillate, holdings LLC and or entity and violation of section 72-171A permits required and given till October 11, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, it is my recommendation to impose a fine as subsequent hearing in the amount of $50 a day until the property is brought into full compliance. I was really hoping that it would be in compliance today, talking to planning people or zoning people, but it wasn't, so maybe tomorrow. How far back, what date will this fine start then? Not till October 11th. Oh, okay. Yeah, I'd like to give them some more time I'm in question. No We'll get a motion I Move we accept the recommendation Dan coffer I Clif Warren. Hi, how's Shamanski? Hi Aaron Dennis. Hi Kathleen Brown I'm going to go to the committee. Dan Coffer. Cliff Warren. Helen Shamanski. Aaron Dennis. Kathleen Brown. Michael Slayton. Motion carries. 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 respondent within five years of the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which a fine up to $500 per day may be imposed. Next case. Next case is 28, excuse me, 38 39 sandstone court that really apronston presenting. This is a duplex so that's right beside the other one. Same honor. date 39 sandstone court that really apron soon presenting. This is a duplex so that's right beside the other one. Same honor. Case number CCB-0545-2024, property location 3839 sandstone court. Zoning is R5 multi-family residential. On June 28, 2024 while in the area conducting routine inspections, I observed plywood over a window opening. Upon further investigation, I observed multiple windows that were new. I spoke with the worker on site. He told me that they had replaced the windows, pavers around the side and rear yards, some ship lap on the ceiling, and removed carpet and were installing new floors. While present on site, the worker called and spoke with the owner, and allowed me to speak to the owner as well. I told him a permit was required. He assured me the permits would be obtained. When I returned to the office, I generated and mailed a cursing notice. I also found an electrical permit that had expired. So I cited them for that too. The property was found to be in violations of Section 72-171A permit required and Section 72-172 penalties for work commencing before permit issuance. On July 25th, 2024, notice of violation and notice pairing was put on the property with an initial compliance date of August 15th. A copy was also mailed, certified mailed to the property owner, and one to the registered agent listed on the Sunbiz website for the active LLC. Both were signed and signed for and accepted on July 29th, 2024. There has been a steady flow conversation between all parties involved on July 29th, 2024. There has been a steady flow conversation between all parties involved. On August 8th, 2024, the electric permit was completed, as well as the permit for the replacement of the doors and windows. On July 29th, 2024, an application for a permit was submitted for the replacement of the pavers and is going through the review process at this time. On September 19th, the follow-up inspection showed the violation for just the replacement of pavers still exists. It is my recommendation that the co-compliance board find Oslet Holdings LLC and or entity in violation of Section 72-171A. Permit required and given till October 11th to bring property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, it is my recommendation to impose a fine at a subsequent hearing in the amount of $50 a day until the property is brought into full compliance. Any questions from the board? Contact with the individuals? Yes. No, they've got an application submitted. They've already, so there was an expired electrical permit that's been completed. They took care of all of that. The doors and windows that I originally went there for, that's been completed. They've gotten all their inspections and it's done. The only thing we're waiting on is for the pavers, which is the same thing for the other property at 3837. So they did the pavers in the driveway, and they had to get something notarized, piece of paper notarized. I seen in the system it looks like It looks like that was resubmitted this morning So it's just got to go through the review process and hoping that tomorrow to be Issued and we can comply the case Just point it from that are these contractors doing this work or homeowners? Okay, the contractor applied for the permits. Okay. I have a qualification. I think I'm hearing you say 72-171. Is it that or is it the 26-171 for the ordinance? You get 26? 26-176. I don't know if I heard wrong or if you said it wrong. Oh yeah, it's right there on the board. That's what I said. That's what I was confused. Yeah. I don't know. We get a motion from the board. May I ask what was your recommendation? Oh, given to October 11th, 2024, an issue of fine up $50 a day until the property is brought into compliance. I'll make motion. Dan Coffer. Cliff Warren. Alchemy. Aaron Dennis. Cliff Warren. Aye. Alchemyl T. Aye. Erin Dennis. Aye. Kathleen Brown. Aye. Michael Sighton. Yes. 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 respondent within five years from the date of this order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which will find up to $500 per day made the imposed. Next case. Next case is 204 Magnolia, John Parks presenting. Afternoon. The address is 204 Magnolia Street. the next . The address is 204 Magnolia Street. The case number is ccb-0564-2024. Excuse me. This property is owned and you mixed use business district. Violation of section 26-914. Subsection 8 landscaping. On July the fifth 2024 code compliance received the complaint regarding overgrown grass and weeds on July the 9th 2024 inspection was conducted finding grass and weeds exceeding 12 inches and the property was found to be in violation of section 26 to 914, subsection 8. On July 23rd, 2024, a notice of violation was posted on the property with an initial compliance date of August the 6th, 2024. A copy was also a male certified male to the property owner. It was signed for and accepted on July 26, 2024. On September 9, 2024, file-up inspections showed no changes to the property still needing to be cut and maintained. I went there again just an hour ago before this hearing and it is still in the same condition. Is staff's recommendation the board to find 204 Magnolia, LLC, and or entity in violation of section 26, station 914, subsection 8, and give until October the 4th, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not come into compliance, it's staff's recommendation to impose a fine 50 dollars per day, and they'll tilt the property as brought in the into compliance, it's tax recommendation to impose a fine $50 per day, and it'll still the property is brought in full compliance, find not to exceed maximum amount of $25,000. So my first question would be, have you had any contact with them? Unfortunately not. There is another code case that's already been heard and leaned that's involved in this property and based upon that one, communications completely died off between the property owner and the city. And do you think the $50 per day will get them motivated? $50 is a reasonable amount. I believe for the violation of landscaping, landscaping is not too difficult. I don't believe in bringing personal issues, whether there was a prior case or not, or even cooperation really into whether this should be an increased fine or not. I think $50 is my recommendation based on the fair assessment. Thank you, Chair. When you say the conversation died out, are they just not responding? There's no, they were accepting their mail They're certified mail on this on this case was accepted on July the 26th 2024 So obviously they're fully aware of it. I said in the picture of my posting of this Notice of violation and hearing right next to it is the posting of the finding still on the same window so I really can't I can't advocate for them and I can't say what their mindset is or whatever I don't know if there's personal issues going on or what but clearly There's been no communication and no action and this property is now At least two foot high if not even higher. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Dan Comfort. Cliff Warren. Second Dan Comfort aye clip worn aye I Are Dennis aye Kathleen Brown aye Michael Sighton yes Motion carries The respondents are further ordered to contact the code inspector to verify complaints with this order and to also be aware that the Respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondents within five years from the date of this order shall be two days a repeat violation of which will find up to $500 per day may be imposed. Next case. The next case is 501 Magnolia that has been withdrawn. Next case is 2767 Neverland Drive. Jason Yates is officer. Barbara Bobalette presenting. Case number CCB-0639-2024. Property location is 2767 Neverland Drive. The case, yeah, I'm lost. That's not my note. No. The property is owned PUD planned unit development. Violation cited is IPMC 303.2 enclosures, section 26-171A permits required. On August 20, 2024, codeiance received the complaint regarding in addition to the property, LaNaye, as well as the install of pavers. No permits for either job or unfile and a portion of the fence was removed for this work with easy access to the backyard where the pool is. On August 20th, 2024, an inspection was conducted and the property was found to date of September 13th, 2024. A copy was also mailed, certified mail to the property owner and was signed for and accepted on September 5th, 2024 at 12 o' 1 pm. On September 9th, 2024, a follow-up inspection showed that the fence was reinstalled, so re-installed so there was that kept the pool enclosed and the permits for the pavers and for the lennai have still not been applied for. I know this morning Jason and I went by this property and while we were out checking the property, the property representative called Jason to discuss this, and also the contractor called, the contractor stated that he couldn't be here this evening because he had one of his children was in a golf tournament, so we didn't want to miss that. They have been in contact with Jason. I think there's some lack of communication, whether it's between the property owner's representative or the contractor did state this morning that he was going to get in touch with the building department and try to get the permitting process started. I checked just before the meeting started and so far nothing has been turned in as of today. So staff's recommendation to find Sherry Lynn, Ranson and or entity in violation of section 26-171A permits required and given till October 11th, 2024 to bring the property into full compliance. If the owner does not commend the compliance, it's staff's recommendation to impose a fine of $25 per day per violation until the property is brought into full compliance. Find not to exceed $15,000. As far as I know, the property owner has not been in touch with Jason at all. It's just been the contractor and this representative, how he's related to the whole thing. I'm not sure, but as far as I know there's been no contact at all from the property owner. And I think the representative was thinking that the fine would go against the contractor, but we can't find the contractor. So we did clear that up with him as well. Any questions from the board? Second. Dan Coffer. Cliff Warren. Alchmanzki. Aaron Dennis. Kathleen Brown. Michael Slayton yes motion kids Barbar When these when they finally get there after the fact permit doesn't the city kept are the building department Yeah, they'll be after the fact permits so they will get the additional fees The respondents are further order to contract the coding spectrum to verify compliance with this order and to also be aware that respondents have the right to appeal the order when it comes out within 30 days. Any violation of the same code by the respondent within five years from the date of the order shall be treated as a repeat violation of which you find up to $500 per day may be imposed. That's all the cases. There are no repeat violations unless there's discussion. Anything else from the board? No. I'll call this meeting to an end then. Well, during the meeting. Thank you. Thank you. you