Are we ready? Are we ready? Yep. Good morning. Welcome to the February 2025 code enforcement board evidentiary hearing. During this hearing we will hear testimony from property owners and the city's code compliance department about whether a property is in violation of the city code. We will hear testimony from the city's code compliance department even if a property owner who has received notice of this hearing fails to appear. A property owner who arrives late after his or her case has been called heard and decided by this board will not have a right to be heard. The hearing will be conducted as follows. The city shall present its case first. After each witness has testified, the property owner may, through the chairperson of the board, cross examine or questions of the witness. When the city has presented all of its case, the property owner 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. 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 as that of other witnesses. The Board may ask questions of the witnesses on both sides as the 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 entertain a motion and may enter a closed discussion at that time. During the closed discussion among the board, no additional testimony from the city or the property owner may be heard. Based upon the testimony and the 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 the violations in a specific time period and a daily fine to accrue thereafter for failure to comply. Failure to correct the violation within the specified time will result in a fine for each day the property is not in compliance after that time period. After the board has made its decision, a copy of the board's finding and order will be mailed to the property owner of record. The correction of violations must occur before midnight of the deadline set for compliance. If the corrections are not made by the deadline, the fine will be imposed for each day in the incorrected violation continues after the deadline. If after your case has heard you wish to appeal the decision, you have 30 days to petition the circuit court of Pinellas County. Could we all stand for the pledge, please? All right. The last question is to flag the National Assembly to the Republic, where it stands, one nation, under God, individual, liberty and justice for all. Please, for the few are going to give testimony, if you could remain standing to be sworn in. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. and we need a roll call. Oh, sorry. We're going to do officer elections. Yes. We need to do a new show. Oh, she's got it. Okay. She's going to be in there. Got it. Knighter. Here. Hensler. Burning. Thank you. Oh, she's got it. Okay. She's going to be sent. Got it. Nighter. Here. Hensler. Burning. Here. Hensha. Wave. Here. Aseklis. Here. Wilson. Here. Okay. Before we get started, we do have some housekeeping to go through. Before we do that though, I wanted to let you all know that because we want to hear each and everybody's testimony, we ask that you silence or turn off your cell phones, it's very distracting and hard to hear when somebody's taking a call. If you need to make a call or take a call, please step out into the hallway. There are also bathrooms and water fountains outside. When you come to give your testimony, come to the podium on my right, you're left. And I think that'll do it. I'm gonna turn it over to legal so we can do what we need to do here. Yes, this is the time of year where we need to do officer elections. So at this time we'll take nominations from the board members for chair and vice chair. Could you tell us who on the board is eligible for those positions? That would be the regular, regular members. And I don't believe, I don't believe alternatives. So any regular member is eligible for chair and vice chair. So I know that Ellie is an alternative. Any others? I believe these are all regular members. So. OK. All right. Let me just double check. Yeah. That would be, yeah. Double check. Don't want to do it wrong. And for the process, we just nominate, right? Yeah, one of you has to nominate. And then if we get a second, we'll go ahead and vote on each position. OK. So I can't vote. You can vote. You just can't run. We're just up double-ticking. I don't believe so, but. What's your name? I'm just out. Hmm. I'm pulling it up right now. That's why I didn't know we had. I can ask myself to reach. Yes, I would. I don't need to nominate. I'm going to keep you all turned it as long as. I don't want to be an alternate. We're going to fix that this year. As I would have applied. I hear you. Dang it. I don't want to be an alternate. Oh, we're going to fix that this year. As I would have applied. I hear you. Hang on. OK. Are we waiting? We're just double checking about whether alternates can take position. But we can accept nominations for chair. So do we have a nomination for chair? Just Ali. Yes, you. I'll turn it over. I second that. Just for this time. But again, we're going to make it full minute. So do we have any nominations for chair? They were nominated and seconded for me for chair. Okay. Yes. And all we need to vote. Okay. Yes. On Seckless? Yes. Running? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Hensler? Hensha? Yes. Wait. Yes. Listen. Yes. Okay. So we will entertain a motion for vice chair. Yes. Okay. Okay. Second. Okay. Any discussion? Okay. Sure, there will be a question. We don't vote please. Okay. Consecuous. Yes? vote please. Okay. Concequise. Yes. We're earning? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Ancho? Yes. Wait. Yes. No sir. Yes. Okay. So we have a chair and a vice chair. All right. We can start our regular order of business. Okay. So we're ready for our first case. Thanks. Okay. Okay. That's fine. Sorry. Okay, item 154, property owner, Berlington 2 LLC, investigators, or item Melinda's? Good morning. I am Saradaolanda's going to investigate it for the city of San Piresburg. Testifying a reference to item 154, case number 24, 83, 82 regarding property located at 55849 streets out. Our surrounding at the beginning of this meeting, this property is a commercial structure and is vacant. This is a co-initiated case. The property was first inspected on May 15, 2024 in Valetian, notice and to the owner, we compliance day of June 11, 2024. The property was last reinspected on February 12, 2025 and the following Valetian still exists. Accessory structure is in this repair. The greenhouse wall are in this repair with open holes and with mold or mail doom. The accessory structure roof is in this repair. And there's also the greenhouse metal frames for the mesh is in this repair the greenhouse is showing missing and peeling paint. The sidewalk is showing sign of this repair in cracks in various areas and the right away as far as damage with open halls. Two out of five ballots have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first class mail posted a city hall and it was posted at the election address on February 12, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Honour Chief was confirming the official county record book 224-8-0508. My last contact with the owner prior to today was on July 20, 2024. The department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter not in compliance. Additional revenue and faxing regard to this case, there's a demo case, a demo permit in process 24 0 9 0 0 0 5 2 0. The property is ready for demo but unfortunately there is an issue with the addresses. There's the permitties on the 56649 street address and then the property on the public record is 558. So there's an issue with the light, you know, the power lines and also the water. So he will go into detail with that. And additional to this, the junk was removed and also the fence was fixed. I would like to enter into evidence if it won. Photo C eb documents 2, 12, 25, 382, Zm. And I just got photos one through five. So this is the front elevation and this is one of the structures you can see the roof is in this repair. I'm sorry. On this picture also you can see the um, the asphalt and this repair. This is another structure that is on the property. This one will not be demolished, but it's on part of the property. This is another section of the structure where you see this repair here is because the property is already prepped for demo. And this is just, you know, the garden area also that is prepper demo and as you can see the other structure. I would like to enter into fact sheets. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence exhibit two and this will conclude my presentation Thank you Good morning, sir Morning, could I ask Miss Melinda's a question? Oh, of course give me give us just a moment sure Miss Melinda's once the demolition that is on the permit is executed will that take care of all the violations? Okay, thank you All right, sir could you give us your name and address for the... Yes, this is WC Turner 304667 in North. St. Petersburg, Florida, 33713. Okay, so what can you tell us about what's going on here? Here, we also get the relationship to Burlington too. Oh, I'm sorry. Your relation to... Oh, no. Oner. Manager member, owner. manager member owner Perfect okay already so tell us what's going on here sure Most of these conditions let was prior to purchase sub-urches at two years ago the conditions are many years old Had a tenant come on in five year agreement, open a retail was going to take all the problems, walked out, just walked out. So I'm stuck with it. Now, most of the conditions are been taken care of. The trouble is it's an old plotted real estate. It has a residential on it and it has commercial side on it. But the deed is where the residential side's on it. So when you try to get, when we originally did the demo paper work, contract work, it was only deed it, which is the residential. But the trouble is there's people living in the residential. And I was very hard trying to explain, even with diagrams or whatever, nobody would issue the permit, because I couldn't have them shut off the electric or the water at the residence. The problems on the commercial side. So we read it to paperwork and put 566, which has the commercial side, has its own water, has its own electric, et cetera. But now there's a problem with the city accepting that address. So a great conversation with the Code of Empower, Sir, she's going to work with me to work with the City to figure out how we're going to solve this problem on two main issues remaining. It's a demo in the asphalt. So, I feel pretty good that she's going to help me directly in order to solve these problems. But the problem is in the address. It's multiple, multiple, it's three or four lots in this property line. One side's been residential for, I know of at least 20 years, the other side's always commercial. It's the commercial side we're having the trouble with. Okay, so how much time do you think you need to get this taken care of? I'm getting ready to knock these buildings down for a long time. You know, it's back and forth, you know, it's a city thing. It is a city thing. The city has to tell me what do they want, but they have to understand they can't shut off the water of the electric at the main house. But she's already agreed to work with me after this to get this solved through the city. So ask me about a timeframe. That's, you have to ask the city because I have no control over their timeframe. So just so you know, once the demo permit is issued, that puts this on hold. So you don't have to worry about time limits. OK. Your goal should be to get the permit issued. And I understand that that's where your problem is. So the board is going to talk about it and we'll try to come up with a time frame that will work for you. That's fine. Okay. I'm looking very much for her help on this matter because I need the city won't talk to me because I'm not the contractor. Okay. I'm just tired of this. It should have been knocked down months ago. So I'll wait until my conversations with the inspector to solve this problem. Well, I think your code's investigator will help you all get it. I agree. Thanks. I'm just just... Yeah. So do you think, like it sounds like how long have you been at this, like kind of sort in the address out, just as we try to think about a time to give you, like, do you think you're close, do you think you're? My contractor, the demo of the place, told me once when it's issued within 30, 40 days they can have everything knocked down. No it's not so I think what the chair said was once you get the permit this gets put on hold so all we're trying to do is give you time to get that permit because it sounds like you're close like if If you were to just guess. Okay, I'm. Okay, we've been waiting for the permit for six months. Okay. All right. We just, it's just like a three. It's circular. Yeah. I got it. There's been no solution over six months on this problem. I have a question. What is the deal with the addresses that is holding this? So the comments from the building department, it seems like one of the utility cutoff letters references one address. The plans from the contractor references a different address, and then our internal case management software and then the property appraiser has this property labeled as something else. So you might have heard it before, it's not uncommon where we have some address listed in our system that doesn't necessarily line up with the property appraiser, but the parcel ID is the same. And this might be kind of the same issue where maybe Duke's, you know, labeling of this property is slightly different than the way that the property appraisers labels it or our system in the permitting side labels it. So that's where the conflict is. The building department has asked for it to be all of these references to the address to be consistent. So this would be something the contractor would have to go back to the utility sign-offs and see if Duke can maybe releable it or if they can edit their narrative that the contractor submitted to make sure that the permitting department understands what address we're referencing, what structure they're referencing, that they're actually gonna demolish. Yeah, can I follow up on that? Go ahead. Is someone living in the resident? Yes. On that prop. Yes. Are you collecting rent? Yes. Okay. I'm still struggling with who's responsibility is it to get this whole address problem sorted out? Sounds like the city's got issues with between multiple departments within the city that aren't reconciled. Why is it the property owners responsibility to get the city internally to get the address is correct or maybe I didn't understand what you were saying? I apologize for any miscommunication. This isn't an internal to the city. So it's one letter that when a person applies for a demolition they have to submit utility shutoff verifications. So one part of it is from Duke. So I don't know how Duke this Duke would be external from the city. I don't know how they've labeled this address but in the corrections from the building department it says 4-825-670 B. And then the narrative from the contractor lists that same address and another address. So it really to me, we can follow up in the building department, but the responsibility to submit all the utility verifications when you're submitting a demo permit, it comes to the contractor or to the owner if they're submitted. Okay. Okay, so that's clear. It helps me that it sounds like the issue is with the paperwork that was submitted and something that came from Duke. So it seems like the contractor needs to go back to Duke and sort that out. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. How many addresses are associated with this personal number? I don't know completely from the Duke's side, but I know in our system I can see at least four. Oh. Okay. Thanks. Can I say something? Yes, sir. Thanks. Okay. Duke's address for the commercial property in question is 6th Avenue North. Lot be. Because when we first talked to Duke on the 580 they said, well, and they kept calling says, well, coming out to take out the power at 580, the house, no, no. So they would not issue anything, not knock anything down. We had to change the address to the sixth avenue, lot be for them to actually come on out to remove, which is gone. The electric line is gone. All right. But that's what they told us that if we put 580, they're not going to list the paper that says we remove the electrical service at 580 when they did not. Once again, it's a multiple use piece of property commercial residential several lots on it. So that's, that's constant problem I'm having with this thing. The water line is where I got the 566 49th Street South came from the city because that was the address the water bill came in for the commercial property. But the deed is 580. So this is the three ring circus that no matter where I go, I keep petting these roadbox. Just give me the permit and I'll get these buildings knocked down. I'll reach them. Go ahead. Just in addition, some additional context, it looks like there's more comments further down. Besides the address issue, they still haven't provided the gas and power utility sign-offs for the demolitions. I have that. And yeah, it was. I have it here by the Duke Energy. You don't have a copy of it? That's what they're requesting and the permit is for gas and power. So I would just follow up with your contractor to see if he submitted it in the portal. Oh, he has to submit it. He has a copy of it. I would have thought that he'd sent it, but I will talk to him today and tell him the sender to you. But keep in mind that it's not going to be on the 580, it's going to be on 6th Avenue, South, Lot, B. Let us read something. You guys got to go sort through all this. We're just here to give you some time. Oh, I appreciate that because I'm not getting anywhere with this. All right, I'm going to try. Based upon the evidence presented as 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 Burlington to LLC to correct the violations within 60 days or by April 27th, 2025, if this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a minute and a second. Any discussion? Too short. I don't think it's going to, I don't think 60 is going to work. I was just, I was trying to just put something out there that says, hey, you guys got, gotta go sort this out because it sounds like they just been running in circles. So I'm trying to put pressure on them to go sort this out. I don't think it'll make a difference. Yeah, I don't think so. Unfortunately, I was kind of at the 150-day mark. Really? It looks something like that. What do you do you guys think I mean I'll make it longer if you want no yes Handsure. No. Wait. Yes. Wilson. No. Okay, so we need to try again. Okay. I can amend my motion. Since we've already voted, we'll just need a new one. Okay. All right. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I moved that the board issue the following findings affect in 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 Burlington to LLC to correct the violations within 120 days or by June 26th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day, she'll be in post. Second. Okay, we have a motion in the section. The second is everybody okay with that number of days? Okay, let's vote. A sec list. Yes. Burning. Yes. Schneider. Yes. Hensha. Yes. Wait. No. Wilson. Yes. Okay, sir. The board's giving you 120 days. If you still don't have your permit at that point, you will receive a notice to attend a special magistrate hearing. You will come before the magistrate and explain the situation to him or her. And they can give you more time. Okay, thanks for your time. Appreciate it. Next case. That's too long. Item 162, property owner Lutheran, Florida, LP, investigator Monique Watley. Good morning. I am Monique Watley, Coates and Mestigator for the City of St. Petersburg. And I'm testifying in reference to item 162, case number 24-21348. This is regarding property located at 550, first Avenue South, and I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a multi-family structure and is occupied by tenants with exceptions to the second floor, which is vacant. This is an internal complaint case. The property was first inspected on December 17, 2024, and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance date of January 4, 2025. The property was last re-inspected on February 14th, and the following violations still exist. Per the city building official, all dwelling units are unfit and unsafe for human habitation and use. Repairs must be made with approved permits under the direction of a licensed contractor Zero out of one violations have been corrected since his 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 hand-delivered By myself to the front desk on February 14th, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records, book 20678, page 0728. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the property manager, Rick Langford, was yesterday on February 25th, 2025, and he indicated he's working on the violations as soon as possible. The department recommends five days and $250 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Additional relevant relevant facts regarding this case is that temporary power has been established for floors 3 through 16 under emergency repair permit 25-01-00800856 and then permit 25-01-001843 is in process to address the postfire damage in the basement, first floor, mechanical room, and the corridor of the second floor. And I would like to enter into evidence as Exhibit 1 photograph, which was taken on February 14th, 2025, and it's 0214253348MW. And this is just showing the elevation of the property. And this concludes my presentation. Chair, some additional context if I may. So this was, for those of you who don't know, this was the fire that happened at the Lutheran apartments on the second floor. They lost power to the entire building, and the entire building was evacuated. So since then they've established temporary power, they were able to establish temporary power from three all the way to the top floor at 16. Two floor two is where the fire happened. So that's that permit that Miss Wildlet right in. That's the permanent repairs in process but they did establish a temporary power to allow reoccurpancy of the units from three to 16 and that's something that the building official and the Fire Marshal Bo signed off on and it's just the what remains now is they have to establish you know a permanent power source and complete all the repairs that are needed for the fire damage on the second floor. The elevator working in the building, do you know? I believe so, but I will let Mr. Lankford testify to that. Any other questions for staff? And you said the second floor is unlivable per the city. If I heard you right. Correct. Okay, just the second floor. Correct. So the city's position, your recommendation was five days. What, I'm struggling with, what are you telling us the city's position is what has to be done within five days? Within five days, so our recommendation for unsafe are always five days at $250. There are still 15 units representing 15 tenants that are displaced because they cannot reoccupy the second floor because there is no power that's been reestablished to the second floor. And in addition, we are requiring that they make permanent repairs. So the power that's been established right now from three floors three to 16 is just a temporary measure. And they need to make all the permanent repairs to repair anything that was damaged from the fire or from the firefighting activities that took place like water damage from the basement to the corridor. I realize it's just a recommendation but everything that's covered from the city's perspective is repairing the second floor and permanently or fixing all the three through 16 from a temporary to a permanent basis. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Good morning, sir. Could you give us your name and address for the record please? Richard Langford, 2328, Fairway Avenue, South St. Petersburg, Florida, 33712. I'm the regional property manager for Hayes Gibson Property Services, where the management agent for the community management agent for the City of St. Petersburg City Council. My goodness. Sorry about that. Quite alright. Go ahead. All right. So you are the regional property manager. Is that what I heard? That's correct. Okay. What can you tell us about the status of the repairs? Well, I can tell you that the status of the repairs, first of all, we talk about the damage for just a moment. There was no fire damage to any units or anywhere in the building. It has all happened in a mechanical room behind the elevators and it was a fire in the main bus bar on the second floor that provides power to the rest of the building. The bus bar is a 55 year old, it's a 55 year old building, the bus bar is 55 years old. And so we, obviously, the building lost power everywhere. Once we've regained temporary power, we have power in the basement and all the mechanical rooms. We have power on the first floor, which is a lobby in the office and common areas. And we have power now all the way up, floors three through 16. Where we don't have power is the second floor, and reason we don't have power there is that's where the bus bar burned in half, and it took out a thing called a tap box. And that tap box is what provides electricity to all the units and the distribution panels on the floor. So that's why that's out. It took us about a month to get temporary power back in the building to go through the permitting process, which was very smooth, I thought, on temporary power. And so they got that back about a month, and then we had to go through the fire control. Johnson controls came out, basically rebuilt the fire control panel, checked all the sprinklers, checked all the fire systems, TKE all of it or came out certified the elevators. City Inspector came out, looked at the fire marshal send an inspector out, looked at everything, approved it on the 14th for us to move February 14th to move people back into the building. So we still have 15 people that are out of the building. During this process of we have 225 units, 275 occupants, about 120 of them were put up in hotels by us for the full two months. The other remaining ones stayed with family and friends. We got them all back in, but 15. Of the 15 that are still out, three have recently moved out. Three we have moved into vacant units in the building and upper floors, and we still are prepping other vacant units to move them into. Our status right now is temporary parapherment was issued and was completed. We have a permit in process to repair the fire damage. And the fire damage was strictly basically cutting out. We had smoke in the ceilings, so we had to do the ceiling tiles on two floors. And we had water damage, was strictly from four sprinkler heads in the fire department. Accountant for maybe an inch or so water on the first floor and second floor. So we've got drywall cut out up to that point. The permit is going to allow us to put the drywall back together again, paint deep, those two areas and move on. The remaining permit is for permanent power. We are dealing with a local contractor, sun coast electric. They have a good plan to replace permanent power, but we can't use, nobody wants to use at 55 year old bus bar. It's in good shape from the third floor up because it's 55 years old And it could fail again. So it's going to be kind of a lengthy repair process We're going to have to have the building look that We're going to have to have drawings made obviously. We'd request an extension from five days to at least 120 days if that's possible Bearing in mind sir that once this permit is issued, this code's case goes on hold. I'm going to ask you how long you think it's going to take to get the permit issued. According to our electrical contractor who I spoke with yesterday. Obviously he's retained an engineer. That engineer needs to make the drawings. They've come up with a suitable plan to totally repower the main bus going up through the inside of the building and avoid using the old equipment. It's an A of love. Give us just a again, sir. Well, talking to our contractor yesterday, the electrical contractor. Obviously, we need drawings. The way they want to run this new power is through a different area of the building. So they want to actually do some scoping of the floors on each of the 16 levels to make sure that they can complete it safely. They're telling me that to do the entire repair if we started today would be 120 days probably. That would be everything. But to just get the permit I'm going to stick my neck out and say 60 days because engineering just doesn't move as fast as we'd like them to. Yeah we hear that a lot. Does anybody have any questions? This one. So it sounds like you have nine tenants that are still displaced if I did my math right? They're eight of them are in the holiday end on 34th Street and the last one is in an extended stay in clear water. You guys are covering the cost. We've covered all that cost. Thank you. That's all that. Alrighty. If there aren't any more questions, is somebody willing to make a move? 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 Coads Investigator have not been corrected. board orders Luther and Florida LP to correct the violations within 60 days or by date of April 27th 2025 if this order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day shall be imposed. Second. Okay we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? I'll seclace. No. Burning. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. that just straight steering. days to get that permit issued. If it shouldn't be issued, you will hear you will get some mail to attend the special magistrates during. I'm going to explain to the magistrate what the problem is and they can give you more chunk if you need it. Thank you. We should look. Thank you. Item 50, property owner, patent, Oricus, Jr., investigator Ryan Henderson. Morning. I'm Ryan Henderson, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference to item number 50, case number 23-13346 regarding property located 4224, 4th Avenue North. I was familiar with this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is currently vacant. The case is a code-initiated case. The property was first inspected on 724, 2023, and a violation noted sent to the owner with a compliance letter of 525, 24. The property was last reinspected on February 21st, 2025, and the remaining violation is that a garage located in the rear of the structure well. That's what it typically are, a garage or maybe not. It was converted to living space without a permit. Zero out of one violation has been corrected since this case began. Notice of here was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, certified mail, and was posted at the violation address on February 13th, 2025. Ownership was confirmed in County Official Records, book 19744, page 1671. During the course of my investigation, my last inspection at the property prior to today, or my last contact with the owner, our prior to today was on Monday the 24th. And the owner did not indicate when the violations will be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and 150 dollars per day. They're after for noncompliance. The additional relevant fact in this case is that there is an accessory living space, accessory living space permit application that is in process to convert the garage to an ADU. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs that were taken on the 21st of February the document number 02125346 RLACB and so here is the first photograph this is the elevation of the property I will next show a photograph of what the original state of the garage was before was altered. All right, this is what it looked like before. Now show what it looks like now. This is what we have. And as we mentioned, it's been converted to a living space. So these are just some photographs that we got off of a website, this is a while back, showing the living space in the interior. This concludes my presentation. I would like to enter the faction of the evidence as a Government number two. This concludes my presentation. I have questions for staff. Just one. So you said, if I heard you write, this was initiated back in July of 23. Right? Any permits pulled back then for this work? And what's the date on the existing permit that just got pulled? So it's in process. I don't have the actual date on it. Let's see. It was submitted June 14th, 2024. June 14th, okay. Thanks. Is the status of it that it's awaiting corrections? Yes. I didn't hear that. Is this awaiting corrections? It's awaiting corrections, yes. Good morning, sir. May we have your name and address for the record, please? Sure. Good morning. My name is Patio. All last years. I'm at 1309 Sunset Drive Clearwater. Okay. What's going on here with your permit? So permit as it was stated was submitted back in July last year. Of course it went through its first round of review and of course the storms did not help with the the timing. So the second round of obviously, when the review process came out, we went ahead and addressed all the issues to satisfy the review comments. And that was submitted last week. So the permit is actually on its second round of review process and now it's awaiting for final review so the permit can be approved per se. Or sent back from our corrections or whatever. Correct. Okay, so what are your eventual plans for this property? Are you going to sell it? Are you going to rent it? It's going to keep that you're going to keep the intention to sell it. So obviously the permit application is to make sure that it's in compliance, right? So we had the mercy of the permit department approving it. If you guys were to have the magic wall to make that happen today issue of permit, guarantee you that work will be started to make sure that it's back into full compliance so approving it. If you guys were to have the magic ball to make that happen today, issue permit. I guarantee you that work will be started to make sure that it's back into full compliance. So it's really the process that's causing the problem. We have no magic wand. I tell you that it at least is troubling to me that it took you a year to apply for a permit. It's not a year. You have to understand that there's documents required, such as getting permits that's done, right now with what's going on in this part of town with the storms, it's hard to get architects, engineers, and subcontractors to commit to do anything in a timely matter. Money is not even the problem because they just not available and the timing is not always in our... I understand that. So you were cited in July of 23 and you didn't apply for a permit until a year later. So, understand that. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. and how long the actual permit department will take to issue the permit. So obviously I would love to get the additional time to get that done, but again. So I see that your permit was issued last June. Right. The initial application was last June. It was issued awaiting corrections on June 14th, 2024. No, ma'am, he applied for the permit on June 14th. And it's been back for corrections several times over since June 14th. Okay. Just one that I'm aware of. there's no, in your, as far as you understand, I realize you got to get it back, but as far as you understand, there's no real work to do. You just need final inspections. Exactly. OK. Well, depending on what the permits, yeah, I understand. But his understanding is that it's done. It's just, there's no work to do except for inspections. I'll read something. Okay. I don't know where I'm here. Based upon the evidence presenting this case, I moved that the board issued the following findings of facts and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the CozInviscate of not been corrected. The board orders Petion Aracios. Aracios. Aracios To correct the violations within 25 days or by the date of March 23rd, 2025. If this order's not comply with a sign of $150 per day, it should be imposed. Second. That's it. No, you have a motion in a second. the discussion? Yeah, so this is... Yeah, what you thought there, that's pretty aggressive. All the work was done on permitted. He was cited back two years ago. Now just is getting to it. This just needs to get to them. So, I don't know if he's going to have tenants in there. So, to me, this has been a really... Something that's not our issue that he created himself. Just got to keep the ball rolling. Yeah, it's kind of where I was on that first case. Yeah, so that was my two cents. Any other comments? A sec, Liz? Yes, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, so I was down there at the Department Department to get a scope of how long this may take, they are 30 days out. So that's why I'm not certain that 25 days will be enough to accomplish this. Well, we're giving you 25 days. So you'd best be down there every day. I'm going to push it. But again, I don't see how me being down there every day will accelerate the process of the permitting department to review and give me a permit. I just don't. And I have been down there. Ever since this has happened, I've been down there probably seven times, if not more. Part of it is to gather information as far as what's to be done. Part of it is to have questions answered. Part of it is to apply for the permit. I have done in my power and due diligence best that I can to expedite this. So I don't understand how 25 days, if you guys are 30 days out and the permit was submitted last week, that 25 days will be graining enough time. So after the 25 day period, you still don't have your permit. You would just be scheduled for another hearing before our special magistrate. And at that time, you could still explain what circumstances are left for you to get your permit. And they could choose to grant additional time. Why did I give him 60 days? I mean, I took a day off to come here. I don't see how that 25 days is actually enough. Self in this situation. Yes, but the building department also is not moving fast enough to issue the permit. We've heard that in the first case. The testimony has been made, the decision has been made, we just need to move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Okay Item 52 property owner Tachonic asset trust investigator Ryan Henderson Before we start mr. Henderson we have two on this particular Owner are they there they're different parcel numbers so they have the same address but they are two different parcel numbers. Okay. Thank you. Proceed, Mr. Henderson. All right. I am Ryan Henderson, codes investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference to item number 52. Case number 24-6-838 regarding property located at 13-01-34th Street North, I was warning at this meeting. The property is a commercial structure and is currently vacant. This is an internal complaint case. The property was first inspected on April 22nd of 2024 and a violation noted sent to the owner with the compliance date of May 30th of 2024. The property was last re-inspected on February 26th, 2025, and the following violation still exists. There is disrepair to the wall. Primarily, in this case, when we cited the wall, it's for the condition of the wall, and it mostly relates at this point to paint that's peeling and shipping. So that's the violation that remains for that particular structure. Two out of three violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail, post at City Hall, sent certified mail and was post at the violation address on February 13th of 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County Official Records, Book 22039, page 1369. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the owners prior to today was on the 24th of February, and the owners did indicate when the violations would be corrected. The Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. I do think I would say that additional relevant facts in this case is that this particular case is for building number two. So there's two buildings with the same address. This is the structure that's on the north and has a parcel that's north of the south building, which we'll talk about in the next case. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs, which were taken on the 21st of February of this year, as well as the 26th of February. My document number is 022-125-838, or LHCEB. All right. All right. So. the first photograph is the elevation. So this is building number two. This is one of the buildings at the old St. Petersburg Times facility. Thank you. I don't want to be too far. This is one of the photographs that shows some of the paint that's peeling down here, and even along here you can see. Maybe this is from some of the pressure washing that paint is loose there. Let's see, 89. Let's see. I need five shows more of the paint on the structure that needs to be resolved. And 215.0, so this is towards the top of the structure, just an area, also that needs to be painted. Now keep in mind what we show or photo routes we don't need to do an exhaustive photo montage of all the areas where there may be paint that's peeling we just try to give you an idea of that there is paint peeling on the structure. I would like to enter this fact sheet of evidence as exhibit number two. This concludes my presentation. Thank you sir. Good morning. Could you please give us your name and address for the record. My name is Katone West. My address is 1637 Glen O'Clayne in Leutz. OK, and your relationship to Conant Asset Trust. I'm the property manager. Katone, it's K-O-T-O-N-E. And if you're going to testify, sir, we need the same from you. You got it. My name is Jacob Goldman. I'm an employee of the owner of the building. My address is 9221 Southwest, 170th lane, Palmetto Bay, Florida. Thank you. So what do you think you need to do some painting? Seems there's a little bit of a touch up that has to be done. I'm not going to deny we saw the pictures, but I just wanted to add a little bit more context from our perspective. There were significant, more violations listed. And maybe they'll come up in the second case. but we spent $83,000 actually an excess of that on the violations that were issued to us. So... more violations listed and maybe they'll come up in the second case but we've spent $83,000 actually an excess of that on the violations that were issued to us so we have been working on this and we do work very hard to be good you know property managers, asset managers, landlords and it's a large property, we want to be good members of the community so we will work towards touching up the paint and fixing the areas of concern. What are your plans for the property? For the property. It's a big asset and currently there are three occupants there so it's leased out to three different businesses, all local businesses. and the remainder of the property is marketed for a lease by CPR local firm. And the ownership continues to evaluate the best path forward. The goal is to revitalize it and have it be a vibrant part of the community. Okay, but there are no tenants in this building? In this building? No. But it is marketed for lease. Okay. So you're actively trying to lease it. Correct. Do you have a painter's lined up? And you know, so when do you think they're going to start to finish? Good Tony speak to that. I'm waiting for a proposal from a painter. As soon as we get that back, we can hopefully approve it. And you know, he can get started usually within a week to 10 days. And you know I was just going to say so in terms of your crystal ball when you think you'd be done with assuming this permit assuming this bid works outside its fact really. I would say within a month. Okay. Yeah and yeah I'll say I he alluded to, we pressure watch the buildings in an effort to address the concerns in the initial violation, to clean it up and it seems like that might have caused some damage in our good nature efforts, but we're working on it. Okay. So would somebody make a motion? Yeah, I can. 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 codes investigator have not been corrected. The board orders to conic asset trust to correct the violations within 45 days or by April 12, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in a second. The only reason I did 45 over 30 was if the first bid doesn't work, they're going to have to go get a second bid but And then it's just a matter of paint doing the doing the work A cyclist yes running yes Schneider yes, and shop. Yes, wait. Yes, listen. Yes All right, sir You you have 45 Thank you very much appreciate the consideration on the beds Item 53 property on our teconic asset trust investigator Ryan Henderson. I'm Ryan Henderson codes Investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference to item number 53. Case number 24-6339 regarding property located at 1301, 34th Street North. I was sworn at this meeting. The property is a commercial structure and is vacant. This is an internal complaint case. The property was first inspected on April 22nd, 2024, and a violation noted sent to the owner with the compliance date of May 30th of 2024. The property was last reinspected on the 26th of February, 2025. And the remaining violations is that there is wall disrepair, including some damage to the walls and the loading dock area. We've also included the paint that's peeling on the structure into that violation. There's also a light fixture that's hanging that wasn't corrected. And that's it. Those are the violations. Two out of four violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of here was sent first class mail, posted that City Hall, said certified mail and was posted at the violation of dress on February 13, 2025. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 22039, page 1369. During the course of my, my last contact with the owner prior to today was on the 24th of this month, 2025, and the owner did not indicate when the violations will be corrected at that time. The Department recommended 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance. The additional relevant fact is that this is the South Building as opposed to the North Building. I would like to enter into evidence, as is the number one photographs, which were taken on the 21st of February of 2025, as well as the 26th of February. The document number is 022 8, 3, 9, RLHCEB. And so this is the elevation of the property. Here is, this is some of the disrepair in the loading dock area. And as you can see, there's several of these little areas in the loading bay where the wall is in disrepair as well as there's some paint that needs to be done in addition to the repairs once those matters are corrected. Let's see. Here's another area. This is on the south side of the structure that needs to be paint where there's peeling paint. I'll just show one more paint on that side. Here's another area. And included in the paint violation and the wall-to-wall disrepair violation was also some areas in the breezeway area where there's paint that's peeling as well as there's places where there's rust. And we've talked about it and they'll address those matters. And the light fixture, that's the final violation. It's displayed. And here is a fixture that's on the north side of the South building that's as you can see suspended via wire. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two. This concludes my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Henderson. Okay. I'm sure. Mr. Henderson, just a quick question. Do you think any of this work requires a permit? It's a question that I probably should not... I don't know if I can take one. Okay. So there's nothing. All right. This is kind of like TBD, maybe. Yeah, because I mean the rust. I don't know. With that walls disrepair, I don't know if what we have to be done. So I don't I rather not. Okay. So if it's just minor than they don't need that they don't permit. But if it gets extensive like they're replacing you know structural boards or but if it's just like you know just on the face of it is what it kind of looked like to me that they just needed to put a covering over it. Cosmetic. Okay thanks. Alrighty we'll need your names and addresses again please. My name's Katoni West at 1637 Glen O'Clayne in Leeds. I'm the property manager for this facility. Thank you, sir. Jacob Goldman, 9221 Southwest, 170th Lane, Palmetto Bay, Florida, employee of the owner of the property. Thank you. So what can you tell us about this one? All right, so I'll take them in pieces. The first one is the light that was supposed to be fixed. We hired someone to do it along with the laundry list I alluded to earlier that was fixed and addressed and they missed it so they're going back out there to address it. No fight from us on that one. The other one in similar situation as the prior case where peeling paint maybe it was exacerbated by the pressure washing. I'll proactively answer your question on this building and property with a plan for it. This is a former printing press from the Tampa Times and it's a little bit more of a challenged building than the other one and it is a candidate for potential demolition and a lot of money has been put into it already so I think there's There's just challenge on continuing to put in a lot of cost into painting the entire large through 100,000 square foot building that is a candidate for being knocked down. But I understand the concerns of code enforcement and you guys here today. So we can get it touched up where the areas are most concern. And the bumpers at the loading docks, those, it's a similar conundrum where I think there's a light problems for a big building. That would be very challenged if we weren't proactively managing it. And there's a disproportionate cost that we felt when we first bit it out. So we're getting better pricing for repairs or removal of the problematic bumpers. Removal of those bumpers might be the best solution to be frank. Because it's not an occupied building. And the loading docked nor is aren't functional for normal industrial tenants. Just based on the size. Okay, so you're not actively trying to lease this building? It is being there's no listing specific to this building but the same team that is actively trying to lease the other one is talking to tenants businesses working with the county's economic development commission to try to find you know industrial users that could come in and take advantage of the heavy power that's in place or other benefits. But yeah. So there are tours going there. But you guys have a time frame that you say, look, if we can't get something going on this building within three months, six, whatever, we're going to decide the demolish it. Is there a window there? You're working with it? Yeah, I'd say about three months. We're working through a lot of different development iterations on our side for really what is the optimal plan for it. And we have some adaptive reuse strategies as well as knock them down, build them, or bring in another group to redevelop it. Because we're going to give you time, but then you've got to be finished with the issues by that timeframe you give you. I think 90 days will be very helpful and appreciate for us before we have to take on what could be significant cost with the painting. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? somebody want to read? Or read, it's like a two-and-a-half-year-old. Yeah. Baseball. Any further questions? Somebody want to read? Or read, so I could you have me, bro. Yeah. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I moved that the board issued the following findings of fact and conclusion of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Coates Investigative not been corrected. The board orders, teconic, asset, trust, to correct the violations within 90 days or by May 27th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Second. Okay, so we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Okay, let's vote. A sec list? No. Reigning? No. Schneider? Yes. Ancho? Yes. Wait? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Okay, sir, you have 90 days. If it's not done in 90 days, you'll get a letter. You're asking you to attend a special magistrate. You need to come and explain to the magistrate that you need more time for whatever reason. If you don't go, fines will start to accrue, and you don't want the property leaned. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. And the light will be fixed right away, by the way. Appreciate everything. Next case, please. Item 161, property owner, Lurin, real estate, holdings, investigator, Monique Wadley. Good morning, I am Monique Wadley, Coates Investigator for the City of St. Petersburg. And I'm testifying and reference to item 161, case number 24-17838. This is regarding property located at 31-51-3rd Avenue North, and I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a multi-family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a citizen complaint case. This property was first inspected on October 29, 2024, and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance date of January 10, 2025. The property was last re-inspected on February 21, 2025 and the following violation still exists. Elevators at the sea glass towers and stone lofts are not operational. Zero out of one violations have been correct. This is case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail. It was posted at City Hall. It was sent certified mail. And was posted at the violation address on February 6, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 21771, page 1624. My last contact with the property manager was on February 21st, 2025, and I was advised that the violations would be corrected as soon as possible. The department recommends 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case is that the C-glass towers went on February 21st to inspect them. Both of them were operational. However, we still have another building, which is the stone loft that has one elevator out of two. That is not operational. And I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit one photographs which were taken on February 21st, 2025. And this is just showing, this was the C-glass towers and then this is the stone loft one. And this is showing the one that is not operational. and this concludes my presentation. Thank you Ms. Rodley. Were the other elevators not working as well or has it just been this one the whole time? So the sea glass towers, both of them, had on the one building, both of them were not operational and that was the first complaint going there and then when I checked the other ones I noticed that the other building there was one of them that has remained not operational. Thank you. Any questions of staff? All right. Good morning, ma'am. Could you please give us your name and address for the record? Good morning, my name is Francois Ayala and the address is 3551, third Avenue, North. Yes, we need your... Oh, I'm sorry. 23, 38, 23 Washburn place. And your relationship to learn real estate holding? I am the new community director. You are the new community director. Yes, AYA LA. Alrighty, so what can you tell us about the elevator then?. So the sea glass tower, when the hurricane came, there were two. They were down and we were able to get those off and running. We do have the same problem in stone, however, one of them is still down. And it is because they are trying to get the fire department fire company to come out at the same time as the elevator company so that way they could watch them fix it but also give us the clearance that everything is okay so it's been a struggle for at least for the past community managed to get them both at the property we already already have confirmation they're coming out this Friday. So we are hoping if you could extend us, give us at least to Friday to get the problem fixed. Both companies are confirmed and they will be on site for this upcoming Friday to fix the issue. And hopefully we're back in compliance. Okay. Any questions from the board? Based upon the evidence, presenting 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 Cozinvestor have not been corrected. The board orders, learn, real estate holding, XLII. So correct the violations within 10 days or by the date of March 8th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Alrighty, we need to vote please. A sec plus? Yes. Learning? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Handshaw? Yes. Way? Yes. All right, you have 10 days, ma'am. Stay in touch with your codes investigator and let her know as soon as that elevator can go up and down. Yes. Thank you so much. Item 84 property owner Jules Elizabeth Cosine investigator for zone 9 Gene Medoo. So. We have somebody. property address 1035 5th Street North. Good morning. I am Jean Madoucote's investigator for the City of St. Petersburg testifying a reference to item number 84, case number 24 dash 10287 regarding property located at 1035th Street North. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a multifamily structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on June 13, 2024, and a violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance state of June 25, 2024. The property was last reinspected on February 24th, 2025, and the following violations still exist. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Both parts in rare-off property require screening, as it is within 50 feet of the street right of way. Notice of Heron was sent first class mail posted at City Hall sent 35 mail and posted at the violation address on February 6, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 18716, page 1195. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner prior to this morning. The department recommends 25 days and $2,200 per day. They are after four noncompliance. They are under additional relevant facts regarding this case. And I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit one photographs which were taken on February 24, 2025.. Document 02242025287J1M, for the number one. And that's the boat at the rear of the property there. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two. this concludes my presentation. Okay, does anybody have questions for staff? 84. You said, did I get it correct? This is a multi-family unit? Okay, and it is occupied. Yes. This wasn't obvious from the picture I could tell. No. So is the problem with the boat? It sparked the rail of the property within 50 feet of the street. And what about the motor vehicle with a cover over it? And the other boat. And the other boat. And there's a boat at the back. We're struggling here because we don't understand the boat. When the case started, it could have been an issue where it was just a boat that was there. That was the problem. The one that's further back, it looks like it's 50 feet away, so it doesn't have to be shielded. The one in the front that you can see right behind the car, that one needs to be shielded if it's not 50 feet back from the street. Is there an alley behind this? There's a street behind so the front side has a street and then the back side has a street also. So it is a lot that goes through. It's a through lot. Okay. So basically what you're saying is tenants can't park boats there. They can't park boats there unless they had it shielded by a fence but that's something they would have to go do zoning to see what would be allowed because the problem there is both of those houses on each side of it are front facing that street. So to put up a fence you can't block their view. So they could only put their fence back so far. And then obviously if there were room, if they could just get it 50 feet away from the street they would be be okay. If there were room, I don't know if there is. Okay. All righty. Any other questions of staff? No. Let me see the picture again. Could we look at the picture one more time please? And there's another boat behind the one that we can see with the blue stripe. I don't see one boat. It looks like it's hard to say what it is. You can't really tell back there. There's something back there, but I don't know what it is. I can't tell for sure what it is. It's a barbecue grill cover. OK. All righty. Thank you. Any further questions of staff? Good morning. Could you please state your name and address for the record? Yes. Jules Cousin. Okay. So. Address. Yeah. 1035 Fifth Street North. St. Petersburg 3371. Okay. And you live at this property? Yes. Okay. And you have another tenant? Oh, my son. OK. So the boat thing's been going on for a while. So what are you planning to do about it? He's going to sell it. I've finally told him, I mean, I told him in August that he needed to fix it and screen it. And it could be a green screen, meaning that's what the description describes, that it could be plants. And nothing he's been done. So, you know, he started college here at St.P. College. He doesn't have time for it, so he's officially now it's gone. Meaning it's going to be on Facebook today. It's going to be sold. So I think it has a title, and we're going to sell it for nothing. Like, meaning just come take it away. You know, like whatever. The zero free stuff, curbal or whatever they call it. OK, so how much time do you think you're going to need to get it moved? Well, I think that I still would, you know, someone's going to have to have trailer. So I'm going to still say 30 days. Any questions? Anybody else with any questions? Because if you need. Is that just a brief? 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 investigative not been corrected. The board orders Jules Elizabeth Cousin to correct the violations within 30 days or by the date of March 28th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day,'ll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in a second, any discussion? All righty, if you could read us out in for a vote. I'll sec this. Yes. Running? Yes. Schneider? Yes, yes. Okay, ma'am, you have 30 days to get that book gone. Go on. All right. Let's look at it at myself. Next case, please. Item 49, property owner Michael Grammer, investigator, Ryan Henderson. Ryan Henderson, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference to item number 49, case number 24-9382, regarding property located at 3937, 15 to Avenue North. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single-family structure and is occupied by the property owner. This case was initiated, it was a codes initiated case. The property was first inspected on May 29th, 2024, and a violation notice sent to the owner with the compliance date of June 22nd of 2024. The property was last reinspected on 226.25 and the following violation still exists. There is paint deterioration on two sheds in the rear yard as well as some areas of the main structure. Zero out of two violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of here was sent first-class mail posted at City Hall, sent certified mail and was posted at the violation address on February 13, 2025. Ownership was confirmed in County official records, but 1, 2, 1, 2, 9, page 1155. During the course of my investigation my last contact with the property owner prior to today was on the 25th yesterday and they only did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance. There are no additional relevant fixed facts in this case. I would like to submit photographs which were taken on the 21st of February of 2025 the document number is 0-2-1-25382, RLHCEB. So this is the elevation of the property. This is, actually I'm going to go to the first, NADIS is fine. This is a view of one of the sheds in the rear yard. As you can see, it has some deterioration of the protective layer. So it's rusting through. It's not weather resistant. Some of the paint on it is peeling. There's also some areas where paint is deteriorating on the real wall of the main structure, which is visible here. And the photograph, and I'll give you another view of that. I think this is a different view of that same shade. Here's an area where you can see the paint has deteriorated on the real wall of the structure. There's a second view of a different section where the paint has deteriorated. There's another accessory structure in the backyard as well, similar conditions, not where the resistant. And here's just another area on the west side of the property where there's paint that's peeling here up under this area as well as here. I would like to enter this fact in the evidence as exhibit number two. This concludes my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Henderson. Does anybody have any questions for staff? Okay. Good morning, sir. Could you please give us your name and address for the record? My name is Michael Grammar. I live at 3937, 1570 North in St. Pete. Okay. So it looks like you have some shed problems and you need to paint. The whole thing was about the shed. I never heard anything about the house until today. Okay. Nothing. All I was told was my shed was too rusty in the backyard. My lawn more storage shed. Okay. I was trying to get that painted. The first testimony I got was 500. The second one verbally were 700, which I thought was ridiculous to paint that shed I've been going through some health issues health issues I've had both my hips and both my knees replaced in the last two years and I'm still trying to get those working again I have not got the money to have other people come in to do that work. I am getting better, I am getting healthier, I am getting more mobile. I intend on getting back there soon out the spring weather has come in, and I will get it painted very, very soon. But now I've got the house added to it and everything else, and I've got a replant for that. I have no idea how I'm gonna get that done yet, now that I'm just hearing about it. Again, I was here for the shed and that's all I was told about was my shed now all of a sudden I've got house issues. This is feeling that's peeling This being opportunity for the some help so so I will tell you that I offered in team to the gentleman back in November and it's actually my case notes and he refused it and even a few moments ago I offered in the that he can at least turn an application and he refused it. He says that he'll get it done himself and to the point of this is the first time that he heard of it it was in the notices that we sent so that's that. Any further questions for the gentleman? Well sir, it sounds to me like the city did give you notice on the paint. Not at the house. How long do you think it's going to take you to get it done? The shed I can get done with in the next couple of weeks. I've bought the material for it so I can try to get that done. And I've got it in the house and I plan on getting back here and getting it done. Now the house is a little bit different. I was in the neighborhood that wasn't supposed to flood there at 13th Avenue and feel 40th Street. If we remember back and I'm sure there's a big issue about that, how that whole non-flooding area got flooded up so bad. I'm still trying to recover from that as well. Did you get water in your house? Very, very close to it, but I got it in my garage. It didn't quite make it that last three inches into my house. That's good. Oh, that's a blessing. I'm still concerned as to why that was blocked off, and that water wasn't running out of the gateway to the bay. All we can do here sir is give you time to take care of the by-law. Yeah that's a whole different issue but the flood area has really really got a lot of neighborhoods upset. How much time do you need sir? For what? Get the painting and the shed. My shed? I'll have, give me 25, give me 30 days for the shed. house I've got to go back and find some way to pay for it. I have no idea how I'm going to do it yet. None. I didn't even know it was an issue until just today. Sirius, Mr. Henderson offered an option that, let me finish before you to get some services provided by the city that would be covered by the city, you've turned that down. Because it's not money out of the pocket. No, for your house. Well, that one again, I'm just hearing about the house today. Sure, okay. I'm not going to debate that point with you. You literally just had this conversation with them about applying to what's called the end team where they would come out and do this work for you and you've turned it down. I'm curious as to why. Because you just said you don't have any money or means of doing this. Because the shed is something that I intend on doing, I say. You have your house. You have to take care of as well. So you have to do that. Well now that I've got the house to consider I've got to go back and reassess what I got to do. I was not given time to think about the house at all. All I was told about was coming to show it for my shed. For my shed. Which is a storage shed for a lawnmower. Which is in a backyard, which is ridiculous. Why I've got to worry about it. Can you bring the picture back up of the house where it needs painting. I think it was just at the base. If I recall, I'm not sure. It's pretty large. Then he had some soft and they're inpatient stuff too. Here's the thing. So here here's one of the areas this is at the on the north side of the structure. Okay. And so here's what happens. It's deteriorated, which means that if we're seeing this, chances are it's chalking as well. Yep. And so it may not just be a situation. I couldn't feel it. Sometimes we can touch and see that chalk and I'll put that in the violation notice. So these are what we can see, but there may be more issues associated with the condition of the paint, which is why we said the cheer rate is as well as peeling. And then here's another view of the wall. There's some areas here, again, the same thing, right? And then up, even up here You can see where the paints the cheerleading up on the fascia Okay, okay. Thank you. Welcome. Does the city have I'm just trying to help with a time frame The end team do we do we know any kind of backlog with them if if that were to be an option I'm not saying it is but if if it was is that a Two-month backlog for them? If that were to be an option, I'm not saying it is, but if it was, is that a two month backlog for them or? No, sir. So currently the end team is severely under staff with only three employees. We are looking at at least a two year wait. I'd like to sign up for that. Sorry, I asked a question. Ms. Zaffra, once he applies and accept it is accepted by N team, this is on hold. Correct. The case gets removed from the hearing process and it's just getting monitored. Oh, okay. So, that's almost like getting a permit. If the N team were to accept it, then this gets put on hold. Yeah, we can remove it completely from the process. The investigator will drive by every 30 days just to make sure that the violation still exists, that it hasn't been sold, and other new violations haven't heard about. Okay, okay. That's better. I didn't know that part. Okay, so sir, if you're willing to go through the end team process to get your house painted, would you be willing? If the information is mailed to me and I can go through it and look at it, I'd consider it. Here again the point is I had no idea my house was an issue until today. You're not gonna what? Yeah, not about the house What we can do is give you time to get your NTM application in process Once it's accepted that puts this case on hold and nobody will bother you they will drive by and check But if you're accepted by NTM and they're going to paint your house for you, you won't have to worry about this violation anymore. You will need to do something with the sheds. I think we got someone who's going to read something and then we'll go ahead. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issued the following findings of facts and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code as stated by the code investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Michael Grimer to correct the violations with 60 days or by the date of April 27th, 2025. If this order is not complied with, a of $100 per day, she'll be imposed second We have a motion in a second any discussion All right, let's vote a cyclist yes running yes, noider. Yes, and shot. Yes, wait. Yes, Wilson Yes, all right sir. You have 60 days to hopefully get the N team on board. Now the N team is mailing me information about that. We need to see Mr. Henderson. The Henderson can help you with that. Will he meet me before I leave? You would go out into the hallway. I'm sure you'll have a talk with you. Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Henderson. All right, we are going to take 10 minute break. Thank you. the and and 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. you 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 . Thank you. . . . . I'm gonna have to 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 gonna go 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. Thank 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. [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ . and Music Thank you. We appreciate the break. If anyone is here to give testimony that has not been sworn yet, please stand. Let me get the other ones in the hallway. Ah, to come here. Oh, okay. Okay. It's hard to say for family. They got to be your old baby, watch their chart. It'll really be mad. Is she said 142? Yeah. If you weren't sworn in this morning, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Our next case. Item 142, property owner Jimmy Lewis, investigators of item Alendez. Good morning. I am Sirida Melendez, going investigator for the city of San Pidesburg, testifying in reference to item 142, case number 24, 87.38 regarding property located at 1700 Scranton, Scranton Street South. I was running at the beginning of this meeting. This is a single home and is vacant. This is a co-initiated case. The property was first inspected on May 24, 2024, and Volition I'm going to show you is the first thing that I'm going to show you is the first thing that I'm going to show you is the first thing that I'm going to show you is the first thing that I'm going to show you is the first thing that I'm going to show you is the first thing that I'm going to show you is the first thing that I'm going to show you is the The exterior properties citing is damaged by fire. The exterior property doors was damaged by fire. The facial and soft is damaged by fire. The exterior property doors was damaged by fire. The facial and surface is damaged by fire. The roof decking is damaged by fire. The property shows several broken windows. There is missing paint on the securing boards. There is peeling and missing paint on the accessory structure exterior walls. After the fact that permit is required for the AC unit, windows doors, electrical work on the accessory structure. Zero out of A, balletsha have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was saying first class mail posted a city hall, since the reply mail it was posted at the violation address on February 12, 2025 Which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing the ownership was confirmed in the official County record book 1931 page 2482 I haven't had any contact with the owner since this case began. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter, not in compliance. Additional reval of facts. There is a renovation permit. 24, 0, 6, 0, 0, 1, 2, 1, 2. It remains in process, but there is on the last note is ready for correction since February 10 of 2025. I would like to enter into evident exhibit one photos which were taken on February 12, 2025. Document 0, 2, 12, 25, 7, 38, ZM, 4, 1 through 7. So this. 25, documents 0, 2, 12, 25, 7, 38, ZM, photos 1 through 7. So this is the front elevation. And as you can see, the boards are not painted. The doors, frames are not painted. And there's smoke on the doors. The sighting is damaged as well. This is a picture of the interior where all the drywall was removed. This is another picture of the side of the structure, where you could see where the sighting melt of the exterior wall. This is the accessory structure. And there is spilling paint on this accessory structure. And also you can see here on this picture where, oh, sorry. You can see the other peeling paint. And you see there's a window, there's a door. And this picture here is showing the AC unit in another window that this is the one that requires permit for that. I would like to enter these vaccines into evidence exhibit two and this will conclude my presentation. Thank you Ms. Melendez. Can you tell me the permit that's in process is for remitting the fire damage? Yes, it's correct. It's to correct the property that, correct the violation on the property that got the fire damage. Okay, great. Anybody have more questions for staff? So I think what you just said, the permit would correct all of the violations if the one that's supplied for now. Well, it correct the fire damage. But they still require a permit for the accessory structure AC unit windows doors and electrical work. Okay. Okay. So that will be a separate permit. Okay thank you for clarifying. Good morning sir. Good morning. Please get your name. Jim and Lewis on 4936 Emerson Avenue south. Okay and is is this gentleman going to give testimony? 30, a smithiel, 4500 Cardinal, White South, St. Petersburg. I work with the architect. Okay. So what can you tell us, Mr. Lewis, about the process here? Look at that. I'll let things to you. Basically, the work is done on the drawings and submitted. It was returning us for corrections. And we tried to schedule a meeting to go with the last two corrections. And we haven't been able to get a meeting with the plans examiner. He was out at office all last week and I went down there yesterday. He was too busy to make an appointment and he said, send him an email, which I sent last week and I just respond from him yesterday. He said he would be in the office but he wouldn't be available to consult with the remaining two violations. But we've completed the drawings and for the main structure, the accessory structure was on there, but the building policy has to be a separate permit. So we're trying to finish the first one first. And then the permit is just for storage for the second unit. The accessory structure will only be used as storage at the present time. Right, but you still need it after the fact permit. And my advice on that is to get that permit started now. As you know, the building department is having issues. Right. Senior, you get your paperwork in the sooner the process can start. Well, like he said, it was already all that was on the first permit on the first drawing. They didn't want that. so now we can start. Like he said, it was already all that was on the first permit on the first drawing. They didn't want that. So now we got to start all over with that one. We just found out that about what, but three months ago, they didn't need all that. They got to put it on separate thing. We just found that out. Right, because you've already done the work. Yes. Back permit. Yes. And like you said, we have problems trying to get the, um, the city that gives the permit because we got to change this. We got to change that it just been a nightmare for me And I'm trying to get it done so we do understand But we need to move along. I know I know we only have we have two violations I mean two corrections that needed to be addressed one of them was very mind and the other one was actually on the drawing, but apparently they didn't look at it. So it's basically done. Okay, so how much time do you think you need to get at least the first permit issued? About 45, 50 days. Okay. As I said, you need to get that second permit request in now. All speed, please. Yes, he wouldn't even need drawings for the second one. It's just cosmetics, you know, electrical and doors and wonders. It's an AC unit issue that I heard so make sure you cover that wherever that is. I don't know which one it's on, but it'll be on the second. It's on the accessory. It's on the storage unit. Make sure it's there. That's all. And I had a question with regard to that AC, new electric and all that for a storage unit. Yes, ma'am. I guess they don't want what they put in there to mold. I don't know. There you go. You're right. and you'll electra can all that for a storage unit? Yes, ma'am. I guess they don't want what they put in there to mold it. I don't know. There you go. You're right. I can read something if you guys want. Are you ready? Let's go ahead. 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 has stated by the codes investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Jimmy Lewis to correct the violations within 60 days or by April 27th, 2025. If this order is not complied with the fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. We have a motion in the second, Any discussion? Do both permits have to be active for this to be put on hold? Okay. Because I don't know if they understand that. Yeah. Okay. It's my understanding. We just need to clarify. That's okay. As soon as both permits are issued. Then it goes on hold. So, yeah. They need both. not just the one. Yeah. Okay. The main one, the fired image one, sounds close, but they need to start on that second one. Well, it sounds like the second, when they, according to them, they have all the drawings, they just need to segregate it out and apply for a separate permit, right? Crush it. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. Let's vote. So, just one second. I'll seclace. Yes. Burning. Yes. Schneider? Yes. Ancha? No. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Okay. The board is giving you 60 days. I'll speed on that second permit. Once both permits are issued, then this case goes on hold until your construction is complete. Okay? Could be milled information to my address instead of the house. You would need to correct your address with the property appraiser. They mail to the address of record. OK. Don't. So if you live at a different address, if you want the mail at that address, then you'll need to change the mailing address with the property appraiser. Your code's investigator can explain how. That's where they get your mailing addresses through the property appraisers. Yeah. No problem. Thank you, gentlemen. Yes, ma'am. Next case, please. Item number 37, property owner 1750, Burlington Ave, LLC, investigator Monique Wattley. I am Monique Wattley, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg and I'm testifying in reference to item 37, case number 24-20823. This is regarding property located at 1750 Burlington Avenue North and I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family structure and is vacant. This is an internal complaint case. The property was first inspected on December 9, 2024, and a violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of December 31, 2024. The property was last reinspected on February 12, 2025, and the following violation still exists. Per the city building official, fire damage structure is unsafe An unfit for human habitation and use all repairs must be completed by a licensed contractor with approved permits. Zero out of one violation has been corrected since his case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail it was posted at City Hall it was sent certified mail and was also posted at the violation address on February 12th, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, but 22821, page 1016. And my last contact with the CEO Tom George was yesterday on February 25th, 2025. And he advised that they're working on the demolition permit as soon as possible. The department recommends five days and $250 per day thereafter for noncompliance. additional relevant facts regarding this case is that there is a DSFR demolition permit 25-02001166 that's been in process status since February 11th, 2025. And then I would like to enter into evidence as Exhibit One photograph, which was taken on February 12th, 2025. And this is just showing the elevation of the fire damage home. And I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as Exhibit Two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you, Ms. Vley. Does anybody have questions for staff? Good morning, sir. Could you please give your name and address for the record? Morning. John Wimpling, 3021 Highland Street, North. St. Petersburg, 33704. Okay. In your relationship to 1750 Burlington Ave, LLC. I represent the owner, Mr. George, White Stone Development. Okay. Are you good? Is that good? I'm sorry, I'm waiting. In what capacity do you represent? We have it. Oh, you have the form. Yes, sorry. Authorizations that were okay. So you've applied for your permit. It's in process. Yes, ma'am. It's too soon, really, to have had any comments back, I would think. No, these... Sorry, I was just gonna say, it has not even been around yet, so. Yeah. So, you're gonna need some time for that to go through the process. These best disappointments actually starting tomorrow. They're bringing a dumpster and a conx out to the property today To pick up some of the miscellaneous stuff that has nothing to do with the demo So the ball is moving. It's just a matter of waiting for the demo permit at this point. It can do the abatement without a permit I believe so. No. What was the question? They're just removing the asbestos without a permit? I believe so. No. What was the question? They're just removing the asbestos without a permit. You said a bestest abatement was going to start like tomorrow or this week. They're just removing asbestos like tiles, that's enough, but they're not taking out like structural elements of the building or low bearing walls. They can. Okay. I believe it was plaster on the wall. I don't want to misspeak but I just don't believe it. I probably if you'd. Yeah. No, I appreciate it. Okay. Yeah. Nothing structural. I believe it was just like plaster on the interior wall or something. Okay. A structure of that age is bound to have some somewhere. Yeah. You're planning on demoing it to the ground. Yes, ma'am. Rebuilding? Well, it's part of a bigger. There's nine other properties on that block that are also in for demolition as well. So it's part of a bigger. That you own? Correct. I'll read some. 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 Coz Investigator have not been corrected. The board orders 1750, Burlington Avenue LLC to correct the violations within 60 days, or by April 27th, 2025, this order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Two 50 because. I just want all the city's number. I can change a difference. That's standard. Brunseve structure. Brunseve structure. Oh, I'm sorry I didn't hear you. Yeah. Alrighty, let's vote. A checklist? Yes. Raining? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Handshot? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. All right, sir. You have 60 days. Once the demo permit is issued, the case goes on hold until the structure is flattened and gone. Okay. It's another better. Thank you. Thank you. So, 11 was taken off. It's red jumping. jumping. Right? Yeah. She's in college. Hello, 80. Ready? Item 89, property owner, bridge, water, place, condo association, investigator for zone one. Joseph Brinori. Good morning. I am Joseph Brinori, codes investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number 89, case 2419763. Regarding the property located at 115, 112th Avenue Northeast. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a commercial structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a tenant complaint case. Property was first inspected on November 15th, 2024. And a violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance state of December 11th, 2024. Property was last reinspected on February 19th, 2025, and the following violations still exist. Interior walls are in disrepair around the window casements in the master bedroom. Light fixture in the bathroom is in disrepair with a broken stem holder for one of the vanity lights. When those screens are missing throughout the apartment, the window blinds in both bedrooms and dining room are in very state- to disrepair actually just in the master bedroom now I believe. Two out of six violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall sent certified mail delivered by certified mail. It was posted at the violation address on February 11, 2025 which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 14734, page 0080. During the course of my investigation, Malayas contact with the property manager prior to today was on February 11, 2025. Property manager 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 one photographs which were taken on 11, 15, 20, 24 and 2, 19, 20, 25. Document FEB, CEB, JCB, and photo numbers one to four. This is the broken stem on the light picture that's hanging. It did repair some of the blinds, but just the blinds in the master bedroom are the only ones hasn't been repaired. just an example of the screen's missing in the apartment. I would like to answer the fact sheet in evidence has exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. Can you clarify for me this is a condo association but this is a tenant that's complaining not a donor. Right. Okay. All righty. Anybody else have questions for staff? I do. The electric disrepair that's unsafe is that the lights in the bathroom. Yeah the broken light fixture. All righty. So I need names and addresses and relationships from all three of you if you plan on testifying Absolutely, my name is Bradley Martin Address will be 601 gay road 7th of Florida 33584 on the HOA manager for the property Yes, my name is Philip Kelly. I reside at 115 112. They have new Northeast apartment 326 St. Petersburg Florida 33716. I'm the HOA vice president And you sir and I'm James Wood 4,000 one Hudson Terrace Campa Florida 33618 it's going to take for you to get done? Yes, absolutely. So, with the violations, there are separate responsibilities on terms of what they apply to. So, as the association, there are some items that land on the association itself and others on the actual owners. We do have a set on the bylaws where anything interior in the condos would fall on the actual owner of that condo, but everything that's in relation with the association, which in this regard would be the drywall. The other two items that were essentially completed, we were able to complete those items. In terms of the owner, I am not quite sure, haven't spoken with them, I'm able to speak with them, but because I'm not on top of that, I'm not the one, essentially managing those condos, we're not quite sure at that time, but I'm sure that we'll be able to get it them soon, hopefully. Okay, is that work that you will undertake for the owner or will the owner do it? that will follow under responsibility to the owner. So let me ask a question of legal. Should we have the owner here? I think you've cited the Condo Association. Yes, it's complicated with Condo's. So I'll go ahead and explain it. We go through with the C through with the CB process. We also have the next case coming up after this, which is the exterior of it. We have to notify all the condo owners now. So before we, before a lien would be placed on the property. So after this, if they're found in violation at this hearing, then at that point, before they come back to special magistrate, we would have to notify all residents of the condo, all owners of the condo. Okay. Just that unit's owner or that unit's owner for that one is already been notified but the next one coming up I see is the whole is the whole association Okay, so the owner of this unit has been notified Yeah, it may I believe this one is and like they own some of the units I believe Would you like me to answer that? Or? OK. Pacifica owns the whole complex. There are some units, such as mine, that are owned by individual owners. So most of the repair work and stuff like that, which has been pretty prompt, I don't know why this even happened, is handled by Pacifica and the association. It depends on what it is, whether it's inside or outside. Outside repairs are done by Pacifica, inside the four walls of my unit is handled by me. Okay. So here's my concern. A Pacifica does own some condos that they rent out there. So they do like not all of them are owned by individuals. They're a large majority owner. Yes. Here's my concern. If the owner is not here and the repairs that still need to be done to the unit are on the owner to do. That's what I'm saying. This particular unit is their unit is Pacifico's unit. So they're listed as owner of record for this unit on the property praise or Pacifico LLC. But there's a tenant unit. Right. There's a lot of tenants. Who made the complaint? Yes. Correct. And which one of you represents Pacifica? None of them. That's my concern. Pacifica is not here. But they're the exactly, but they were notified. They were notified. They're just here because they're the ones that do the maintenance on the properties for them. All right. But before we give them additional time, I would have liked to have spoken to them to find out why this hasn't been addressed at all. These are relatively minor problems compared to some of the other damage we see. Well, I have another question for you guys. So bridge water place condo association is what's on the code violation, but they don't own any of these properties. They are the condo association, so the owner for that entire condo association. And then our agenda doesn't list all the names, but individual owner for this unit is specific of bridgewater who we've also noticed in this case But they're not here. They're not here They have they're coming here to represent them Because like like we said their do they do for For it they do all of the exterior and then they also do the interiors on the ones that are owned by but like the But that's not what I heard him say now. We're here representing the HOA But hold on a second my question was I thought what I heard you say was all of the work that needed to be done, that you guys were responsible for is done, and what's outstanding is the owner's responsibility. But what I'm hearing now is the owner of this unit is Pacifica. Correct? Correct. I believe the gentleman in the middle of it is saying that he, are you the representative for Pacifica? No, so I can clarify a little bit because I feel like there's a lot of points. So, me and myself, I work for Proceillo, we're managing the association, right? So I'm the H.O.A. manager for the property. Phil is an individual owner that owns one of the condominiums there and he's a board member, so he's a vice president of the board member. Now, Pacifica themselves as the company, nobody's here representing them. Now, the condos, all of the condos, about 200 of them are owned by Pacifica, so they're very large company. The rest are just individually owned like Phil. Now, everything exterior falls just by the bylaws, falls on the association's responsibility. So, any liability exterior would be on us. Anything that's interior would have condo. So, within the walls, that would fall on those individual owners they checked in with the address, both cases were pulled. There is a property manager that handles the inside that didn't show up. Okay. So we're missing a person. Yeah. So should we be even hearing this one? No, we just said this is just a strange violation. This one is interior. The next one they need to be here for because the next one is should we just table this one I mean I think for this one will have to just give them the recommendation since we don't have anyone who's responsible for the maintenance of the interior and then we can hear from them on the exterior right the H.O.A. is recommendation from the city okay 25 days and 200 day so that it'll be right in at the end okay it'll just be grouped and at this point okay just just to kind of sorry let's go to the next day I don't want to so you said somebody from Pacifica was notified and they're not here okay Okay. Alrighty, so next case. Item 90, property owner Bridgewater Place Condo Association, investigator, justice, Breignori. I'm Joseph Breignori, codes investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number 90, case 2420273 regarding the property located at 115, 112th Avenue, Northeast. It was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a commercial structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a code's follow-up case. The property was first inspected on November 25th, 2024. And a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of December 18th, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on February 11th, 2025, and the following violations still exist. There are damages to several roofs from the hurricane. A permit will be necessary for repairs. There are several areas that these buildings have exterior walls that are now in various states of disrepair with wooden side and missing cracked bowed chipping and peeling rotted stained and mildew and a hole in the trim around window near the front entry of Unit 100-106, Building 100 Unit 106. Please contact construction services as permits may be required. Several of the buildings have had high water flooding. Now have insulation hanging down from the underside of these structures. The chimney caps on some buildings, including but not limited to building six are in disrepair and or damaged. Are in disrepair with holes, rot and or chipping and peeling paint. Sidewalks are in disrepair including but not limited to the front of building 100 adjacent to the handicap parking spot and the pool in Hata and disrepair with black water not maintained. One out of seven violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first class meals posted at, sent certified mail, delivered by certified mail was posted at the violation address on February 11th, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 14734, page 0080. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the property manager prior to today was on February 11th 2025 Proper new manager did not indicate when the violations would be corrected They were waiting on the insurance adjusters. They still waiting on their appointment to get the insurance people out after the hurricane The department recommends 25 days and 200 dollars per day thereafter for noncompliance. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on February 11th, 2025. Zero, two, one, one, two, five, two, seven, three, JCB is the document and it's photos number one to eight. So some of the chimney caps, some of the roof disrepair. More of that. of disrepair. there, the pool or roof. This is the fascia soft fit. pull the exterior wall damage. Sidewalk disrepair. and And an example of the insulation hanging from the underside of the buildings now after the water rise up, gross up. I'd like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you, sir. Can you tell me did any of the units take interior water damage? So I did confer with the proper manager about that. It was unclear. They said that didn't happen. So that it got to that level, but it didn't see through from underneath. I haven't been in any of those units and there haven't been a tenant complaint case. Okay, but there are tenants in those units. I'm not sure. Some of them, some probably, but we don't know exactly if they're condo owner. So large complex. Yes, very large. Okay, so gentlemen, I will need your names, addresses, and relationship again, please. Absolutely. My name is Bradley Martin. Hydros would be 601 gay road, 7th and Florida, 33584. I'm the H.Y. manager for the property. Name is Philip Kelly. My address is 115, 112th day of Inunit East, apartment 726. St. Petersburg, Florida, 33716. James Wood, 4,0001 Hudson Terrace, Tampa, Florida, 33618. I'm the regional manager with Presidio Roti, probably a manager. I forgot my title, it's HOA Board Vice President, sorry. Thank you very much. So where are we with insurance and permits? Absolutely. So we have all the estimates, all the contractors and I'm assuming they're pretty much ready to get the permits checked out, but we're just waiting on the adjusters and the insurance to finish their investigation. They essentially told us that we can't spoil any evidence. We have to keep the integrity of everything as of right now. I did get an ETA on the public adjuster. He mentioned that everything should be pretty much finalized inspection wise on March 28th. So pretty much after that, then we're able to conduct those repairs. Then you're able to begin to apply for permits. Correct. Yes. That is correct. What about the pool? Is that part of it or is that separate? The pool would be part of it. In total, it's a $6 million claim. So it's taking a bit. Are you trying to do anything? Because it looks like it was stagnant water. We all know what happens with stagnant water. Once we move into the spring season with bugs and mosquitoes. So they've explained to me the scope of work. Essentially what they're going to do is they're going to drain the entire water for all the pools in the spa. So they're going to remove all that debris. This infect everything. Refill it with water, add all the necessary chemicals, make sure all the systems are working properly, and then everything should be back up for money. Is there anything you can do right now? Are you able to? ask because the polls are commercial and their license on that particular poll company, we are not allowed to touch anything because that is under their license. So we're here to give you time, but we're struggling obviously with how much time should we you? Because you have to get it. You have an outstanding insurance that you're dealing with. And then it sounds like you can't even apply for a permit until you get that. Correct. Well, I sat in with the one of the adjusters. And first off, I appreciate the time and effort to resolve these issues that you're taking. And he said that with the insurance, they have to go through everything. They will check everything with the fine tooth comb. And he said it would take at least six months for us to get any kind of insurance settlement up until then we'll probably have to assess a specialist assessment to cover some of the immediate costs. And that will take time. But like he said, he said it'd be at least six months before any insurance payouts will take place. Six months from February. February? Yeah. Okay. But, but didn't you? I've been obviate the need for you to get to do that. We're going to have to do that. We're going to have to do that. We're going to have to do that. We're going to have to do that. We're going to have to do that. We're going to have to do that. We're going to have to do that. We're going to have to do that. We're going to have to do that. We're going to have to do that. to get them. Agreed. You don't have to do anything to the structures, but you need to get the permit applied for. That gets the ball rolling, and it will toll some time that it's going to take for you to get insurance settlements and whatnot. The other thing with the pool is, at minimum, it needs to be shocked so mosquitoes don't breathe. That's a health concern for you and for your tenants. That needs to happen immediately. That pool cannot stay the way it is. Understood. Okay. Have there been any architectural engineering drawings have you begun that process for the permits that are going to be needed especially for the roof? No. No, no, no. As far as I know, I'm concerned. No. We haven't had anything to do now. Why? I think it's paid part of the the adjustersers notes of inspection for the claim and insurance. We both had Helena and Melon, both of us. The water was caused by Helena and the underneath the carriage of the buildings was caused by Helena as well.. The other parts of the part of the building. Okay, there was no structural, interior structural damage to the buildings. It was just exterior such as roofs, siding and fleshings on the, the roofs and the chimneys. but nothing structurally nothing disrupted the foundations of the buildings where the interior is as such. Have you gotten any pricing on the roof repairs? Have you gone that far? Yes, absolutely. We do get the estimates. The roof's themselves was about 800,000. Deciding would be about 2.5 million. Are you going to have to wait for the money to come in from the insurance settlement or is specific a big enough to handle that and wait for the money to get to the point? Correct. So that's where the special assessment will come in and Pacifica will be paying their portion. and then with that portion we'll be able to cover those major repairs that we can get done immediately. And you have a feel for what actually of the work you need to do requires a permit. Is it just the roof and maybe the siding? Yeah, I'm assuming the siding the roofs and the pool. Gotcha. So what they're saying, I think if I understand it, they're going to assess, they're going to put a special assessment out on the owners of the condos to pay for all this and then I would guess if they get insurance money reimburse them to some, I don't know. But I think we've all been informed about these special assessments and how well those go over and how many people decide to participate or sell or leave or And it sounds like Pacific owns a bunch of these anyway, so they'd be assessing themselves Well, I've talked to many of the owners and most of them are on on Fixed income social security and stuff like that. So it's it's gonna be a very difficult Assessment to that's my point. I a special assessment is not going to bring in the amount of money that they need to fix this. But assessments are known. They can get the permits rolling. Correct. That needs to happen. Because it's taking a very long time together. And with the project of this size and the damage that we've, the little bit of damage that we saw just in the photos. You can anticipate that it's going to be returned for correction probably multiple times. So you really need to get rolling. That costs minimal money to start with getting the permits issued. Once the permits are issued, this goes on hold. That gives you time, it gives you breathing room to get the insurance adjusters to pay. And do you have a preferred vendor for each? So do you have your roofing vendor, or who's gonna repair it? Yes, correct. We've already spoken with all of our vendors. We have the estimates in they've already know the scope of work everything is in line. Yes They might cover you for a permit Okay, but they I think instead they haven't started any drawings. They haven't even done it. They need to Yeah, so how do you I don't And it's been four months already right Get all get it set up. I'll read something we can just See how it goes Based 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 Cozinvest Care have not been corrected. The board orders Bridgewater Place Condo Association 1 to correct the violations within 90 days or by the date of May 27, 2025 if this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day she'll be imposed. Second. So we have a motion in a second, any discussion? It's just three permits. Excuse me, but the 90 days that- All the second. It'll be clear. So that just just gets the ball rolling on them. Yeah, I mean, I'd suggest they're not going to happen, but you got to give them so you got we got to define something. Something. Yeah. You can't stand in your foot where it's got to go. And they have three vendors. Okay, so let's vote. A cyclist? No. Running? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Hensha? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. All right, you have 90 days, serves, to at least get your permit rolling. That doesn't mean we don't realistically expect that that permit is gonna be issued in the news. But if it's not, I mean, the God's a fortune could smile on you and it could get issued. But if it isn't, you'll get a notice to come before the special magistrate. My advice would be to already have your permit in process when you come to them to ask for more time. Thank you, okay? Thank you so much. Thank you. Good luck. I don't know what they're doing. Next please. Item 163, property owner Greg and Carla Wilson, investigator Tucker Hodges. Good morning, I'm Tucker Hodges, could investigate it for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference to item 163. Case 24-11709, is regarding property located at 3401, 40th Street North. I was sworn in at this meeting. Property is a single family structure occupied by owner. The codes initiate a case, property is first inspected on 7.6, 2024, and a violation that is sent to the owner by, with a compliance date of 7.29, 2024. Property is last being inspected, 2021, 2021, 2025. And the following, violations still exist. Outdoor storage, various items, including tents, tarps, metal pieces, lumber, construction material, car parts. The pool of the rear property is not properly maintained and is holding stagnant water. There's a window in the front of the home that has a broken window pane. Various areas of the wood fence are in disrepair, leaning and or broken. The driveway is in disrepair, asphalt. There's a hole in the soft front of the house that needs to be properly covered or screened, and the light above the entry porch needs to cover. One-house six violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first last mail posted at City Hall since certified mail. It was posted at the violation address on 2-7 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 07-440, page 1688. During the course of my investigation my last contact with the owner prior to today was on 2725. Owners do not indicate when the violations will be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Let's turn it over. Exhibit number one photographs taken on zero, sorry, on 7, 6, 24. Document 0, 7, 0, 6, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9,24, document 0.70624 709 RTH. Front elevation, I'm sorry, but this doesn't show the brick and window. It's, I think it's the pain right here. It's about the best shot I could get'm sorry. So you hear some of the debris that's been left in the alleyway. the debris. the Come on. area of the asphalt that's in this repair. Apologies, technically, while with these pictures. All right, I have the picture of the pool. All right, this concludes my presentation. I'd like to, I'm just, excuse me, I'd like to enter this fact sheet in the evidence as it is a bit number two. And this concludes my presentation. Mr. Hodges, they've made any progress with some of the junk and debris? Well, I had people living in the backyard who have since been evicted. Okay. And in that time, they acquired a whole lot of stuff. And now it's all out of that backyard and it's all in a right way. Our neighborhood team gave the Wilson's several trips to the dump with the with the big dumpster but that they've kind of maxed that out. So they're trying it's just really the main thing is the fence and the debris is the worst part. And the pool. Yeah the pool but was debris in the pool. So it's having to be removed. So they've sort of exhausted N team. Yes. Yes. Hello, ma'am. Could you please give us your name and address for the record? Carla Wilson, 34-01-40th Street North. St. Petersburg, Florida71 3. Okay and your relationship to Greg Wilson? I'm that's my husband. Okay. So what's your plan? Well, the very first thing I had to do was get rid of the people that were living in my backyard. It was a very long process of going through legal and we just finally on January the 10th got the final thing to have everybody evicted. The day after they left was the day they took my dumpster away. I was planning on going in and just cleaning all of it up myself. And now I'm still trying to figure out how I'm going to get it all cleaned up. I've been working with Tucker and with Donald Putnam. I'm trying to come up with solutions to take care of that. But everything else wants to get all of them junk cleaned cleaned up then I'll be able to try to work on. Okay and it's very deep out there so it's gonna take me a little while to get it cleaned up. Does anybody have any questions? I have a question for Mr. Hodges the The motor vehicle is that one of the six that was taken away. It was a camper and then ran away. That's gone and there was a trailer that's been removed. It sounds like we can't go back to the end team and ask for another dumpster to be placed out there for a couple weeks. Currently, there's a shortage on the commercial dumpster. So while we had it out there, it didn't seem like there was any progress being made. I'm sure we could go back to the N team and ask them. But we would have to have some assurance that progress will actually be made this time. It's not just going to sit there empty and be used by neighbors passing by or anything like that. The end team can and has assisted in the past with debris removal, like they will haul it themselves. Miss Wilson would just have to be comfortable with everything being hauled. The issue can be when some owners want to, you know, I want to save this, but you can throw this away. That's not something that the end team can accommodate. It has to be, you know, this is all a trash. You can take it away. Yeah, right. So it sounds like the difference though, and the reason you might be a reasonable request to get another dumpster is that they just got these other folks evicted. So now maybe that's an enabler to let them go fill the dumpster up now. If I may just one question, Ms. Wilson, are there any other people remaining in the backyard or along the alleys that are anyone else staying at the property now? No. I mean we can we've not told that to happen again right? I'm definitely not. That was one of my worst worst worst mistakes. All right. And are you okay with them coming in and throwing it all out? I am. I mean none of it was my stuff anyway. Okay. We can certainly touch base with Mr. Putnam, the manager for the NTM and C, what his team's willing to accommodate? OK. So maybe 60 days to get that process to work. And you have any thoughts around the fence and the pool then? So that's just? Well, until I got rid of everybody in the backyard, I couldn't even go and work. I have been trying to get the pool completely drained. But there's so much junk in it. I've got to have somewhere to put it. I don't want to pull it out and just throw it on the ground. So I think it's going to take me longer than 60 days to get this accomplished. And as far as the driveway goes, I don't really have the money right now. My husband hasn't worked in two years. He just spent three days in the hospital last week. The car that got taken away was my 21-year-old grandson that had passed away. And so I've had really a rough year this year. And it'll just be me doing it probably by myself. So I've just got to get the dumpster so I can start filling it up myself. And everything I'll do, I'll try to get done myself. Does the N team do concrete driveway work? No, but we have a separate program, the CODE's assistance program that we recently created that can address driveway disrepair. We just have to have it evaluated and there's an income verification process and it's also going to have to go through. And that's something Mr. Hodges is here familiar with to maybe Pell? Yeah, oh yeah, I can take my information. So there's a, I can read something. Yep. 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 are stated by the code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Greg Wilson to correct the violations within 120 days or by June 26, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $50 per day, she'll be imposed. You want to hear a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? $50, really? I just don't think that, I mean, even at 100, if she's doing it by herself even at a hundred twenty days She's probably still not gonna get it done Well, I think what I heard with the end team is if it's an all-or-nothing They can help with kind of getting but she's got driveway repair. She's got pool. She's got a deal with Yeah, and then that'll I mean if that's a People object to that I can raise it, but. Let's vote. Ladies, we need to do a sec, Liz. Yes. Running? Yes. Nidah? Yes. Ancho. Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. All right, ma'am. The board's giving you 120 days. Stay in touch with Mr. Hodges. And let's see if we can't get you some help to get the place cleaned up, okay? I would appreciate that very much. Now, if you don't make the 120 days, you'll get a notice to come see a special magistrate. Don't miss that hearing. Show up and explain that you need more time and you will probably get it. Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. I appreciate all of you. Next case, please. Item number 25, property owner Joseph Back and Raymond Fung, investigator Jose Rodriguez. Item number 25, violation address 104410th Avenue South. Good morning. I'm Jose Rodriguez, Cosen, investigative for the city of St. Petersburg. Testifying and reference to item number 25. Case number 24-5760, regarding property located at 1044-10th Avenue South. And I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a single-family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a C-click fixed case. The property was first inspected on April 3rd of 2024 and the violation notice since it owner with the compliance date of May 12th of 2024. Property was last reinstated on February 18th of 2025 and the following violations still exist. A residential renovations permit number 23-1100-882 never approved and work has been complete. Permenies to be approved and final approved inspections from the building department. Two out of three violations that have been corrected 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 the violation address on February 10th of 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 22452, page 0376. My contact with the owner of the project today was on August 21st of 2024. On a date indicate, excuse me, 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 residential or renvex just permit number 23-11000882 remains in process and the last action the planner review was approved on December 19th of 2024. I would like to enter into evidence is exhibit number one. Photograph was just taken on February 18th of 25 along with a screenshot document 021825760 JAR, C-E-B, and photos, just one photo in the screenshot. So this is the actual screenshot. So this is the previous picture of the property itself, the elevation. And so this is the current picture of the property as it looks today. As you see that the front area, the enclosed porch has been opened up and then there's been some other renovations to the property itself. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation Mr. Rodriguez can you tell I'm afraid I misunderstood or didn't quite get it The works complete correct But the permit was never issued right so it's a in process permit. I don't I didn't see I don't have the information here exactly when they applied for it, but basically they did work without a permit. Then I believe there was a once upon a time they tried to go in there possibly doing after the fact permit. So I'm not sure where their role blocks are as far as getting the permit approved. However, they just, they did the work, completed the work, and then just the permit has been in process for a while. So they just never got an approved permit to do the complete at work on the actual structure itself. You said the plan has been approved. So it's been approved by zoning. It has been ready for corrections from the building department, which states that they need to submit the first page of the building permit. There are multiple windows and doors being replaced in this project. The 25 exemption cannot apply. Submitted plans do not indicate clarity of all work being done in this project. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location. So they need to, for the building to put, so zoning has approved it further and the building department is not approving it until they resubmit what needs to be resubmit. There's been a recent resubmittle in the middle of December of 2024. So it just hasn't been reviewed by the building's idea. Okay, still in work. Any further questions for staff? Good morning. Could you please give us your name and address? So let me think, 6-5-1-8, Kingsborough Drive North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 3-3-7-0-02. And your relationship to Joseph Beck or Raymond Fung? Personal friend. Do you have authorization to represent? Yes. They sent a notarized document. Do we have that? It's in the case. Yes or no? Yes. Okay. Alrighty. Okay, and you tell me what's going on here with this property. It's been a very frustrating process so the the owners did make a mistake this is a new process for them it's a it's a husband and wife. That did not understand the whole process for the city of St. Pete. They are trying to remediate this with corrections. They've spent a lot of money. They pulled a permit for the roof. Did the tent team spent $25,000 in the electrical all permitted. And when they did start doing some of the interior work, including the picture that he showed, which was the front, that was a deteriorated termite infested paneling, they removed. They replaced, I believe, one window. So I don't quite understand about the 25% role on that. We did not know zoning was approved. He stated that the last communication was August 2024. October 2nd, Ken, what he was emailed a narrative letter asking for assistance to see if it was something that it was looking for. Ray Fung called emailed no response. I came in myself to sit down because in one of the conversations he did sometime between the first week in October, he said, well, I'd be happy to discuss this narrative, what is that called? Review. Narrative letter. Let me ask you, is this with codes or is this with the building department? Building permitting. So really we need a permit. Yes you do. And we have actually been trying to get this permit. And just to sit down with somebody to say, OK, and I realize it's a lot of back and forth story. But you go and you say, OK, what is it you need? And they tell you one thing, you do it. They go, oh, well, you need to add this. So it's just been a little frustrating. OK, so first off, most of the problem here, they created on their own. Yes. They did the work. They did the work. So you're going to have to make nice with the building department and get that from the state. And get it inspected and get this done. How much time do you need to have that happen? We just need to permit. And how much time do you think it's going to get that permit? Everything has been submitted. It said December December 12th. It will the estimate a time to complete the review is January the 3rd. So the ball is not in our court. It's in the city's court. We would like to try to get this permit as soon as possible. Is there anything outstanding that you see on this permit? No, ma'am, it just looks like it's still waiting to be reviewed for the building side. Okay. Who knows? Good go for another round. Yeah. Yeah. I have a question. Was there a contractor that did this work or did they do this work on their own? Both. There was the contractor involved with this permitting correction situation. There was on. That's see, what was the date? January 5th, 2024, the contractor, the GC, we met at the permitting office. And he helped with the drawings, and he became, you know, he was involved. And the owners have no problem, you know, doing whatever they need to do. They understand they made an error. And they would like to correct it. They have been over backwards to try to correct this. And the doors, you know, just, and it's nobody's fault. I mean, everybody is, you know, we've had two hurricanes. You know, it's just, this letter comes in and penalizes them when it wasn't really their fault either. At this point, ma'am, what we have is a situation where the work has been done. We don't know whether it even complies with building code or whether it is. Right, but we're just asking for a permit. And they have tenants in there. So this is not a small thing. This is something that should have been resolved a long time ago. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. The understand. not a small thing. This is something that should have been resolved a long time ago. Understood. We have had number of calls, visits, meetings, trying to correct this. Okay. I'll read something. on 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 as stated by the Code's investigative not been corrected. The Board orders Joseph Bach and Raymond Fung to correct the violations within 60 days or by the date of April 27th, 2025. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Everything okay with the time and the amount? I think it's too long, but I'll just say no. Okay. I can revise. Aseclist? No. Raining? Yes. I'll sec this. No. Running. Yes. Schneider. Ancha. No. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Okay. You have 60 days to get this done. If it's not done, the gentleman will receive a notice of a hearing for the special magistrate. They will need to come to the magistrate in plain and ask one more time. It was at my place. Thank you. No. What do you say, yes or no? Yes. Do you know this? Did you say yes? Yes. My apologies. I count. I clearly a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I haveifying our reference to item 59, case 24-8617. Regarding property located at 2-827, 26th Street North. I was sworn into this meeting. There's a commercial structure occupied by tenants as it codes initiated case. Property is first inspected on 516, 2024. An evaluation noted sent to the owner for the compliance of 6.9, 2024. Properties last we inspected on 22, 22, 25, and the following evaluation still exists. Multiple vehicles and just repair a stored in front of shop and various parts, trailers and other items are in view and not properly stored. The storage of wreck disabled vehicles or boats on not exceed 10 10 days in a 30 day period. The improper storage of parts, tires, and other items is in violation of the land development regulations. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, was posted at the violation address on 27,25, which is at least 10 days prior to his hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 11593, page 1760. To encourse my investigation, my last contact with the tenant prior to today was on 2725. It did not indicate when the violation would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter if noncompliance. Lieutenant Evidence, exhibit number one, photographs taken. That would be a couple of different dates. Nine 10, 2024 and 221, 2024. Document zero, two, two, one, two, five, six, one, seven, year. The year is on the year. The year is on the year. The year is on the year. The year is on the year. The year is on the year. The year is on the year. The year is on the year. The year is on the year. The year is on the year. And then the newer pictures. There's a newer picture, you guys, some of the tow trucks here. Nice old crib shop and its outdoor storage. Suddenly the internet is actually in the evidence is at zip number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Hodges. Does anyone have questions for staff? Was this a I didn't hear who initiated this Mr. Hodges. Code's initiated. Code's initiated. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. All righty could you please state your name and address for the records? My name is David Brusky. My address is 2837, 26th Street North, St. Pete Florida. And I am the owner of the businesses. OK. So you're with Westward Properties Inc. No, I own the businesses at the property. Are we OK to hear him? I hear from tenants. have to hear from the owners of the property. That's fine. We'll be getting the ownership. OK. Unless he has a reprimand. Authorization to represent. Do you have authorization from the owner? Just verbal and I believe that he did talk to a talker. He's out of the country. And we didn't see the notice in the notarized statement in there. Your best advice legal? My best advice would be to not hear it. To not hear it. Right. Because we don't have any representation from Westward properties. We will need either the owner to appear, or we will need a notarized authorization form to hear you, sir. I'm sorry, but we would have had that, but we didn't see it in here. The one of us seeing it. So I apologize for that. I'm sorry for the way that we can't hear you today. OK. We can let them know what the recommendation is. Yeah, it will be read in as a matter of course and he will have 25 days to rectify the situation. And afterwards it's a $200 fine per day. Okay. Let him know then. Well, I mean, okay, I guess I can't talk at all then. Well, sir, the next hearing would occur on April 22nd so if things aren't corrected by that date Make sure you have your authorization form and then you'd be able to come back and speak at that time. Okay Thank you. Thank you Next case please item 116 property owner HP I self-storage St. P LLC investigative for zone 16 It's good to see you. David Walker. It's good to see you. Yes, sir. Good morning. I actually pay check in sworn in. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Go ahead and stand, raise your hand. Anybody else who hasn't been sworn in yet and is going to testify today, please stand and raise your right hand. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you, you can be seated. Alrighty, we're ready for you. Ready to do. Good morning. I'm David Rock Walker, Codes Investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, Testifying Reference to Item 116, Case 24-5245, regarding property located at 401734th Street South. I have a sworn in at this meeting. This property is a commercial structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a code follow up case. This property was first inspected on March 28, 2024 and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance date of April 24, 2024. This property was last reinpected on February 21, 2025 2025, and the following violation still exists. Disrepair on Patriot Square and Cubesmart self-storage sides of Masonry Wall at right of property. Observe multiple areas of disrepair. A permit will be required to repair the walls on the both sides. Notice that hearing was sent first class mail post at City Hall, since certified mail delivered by certified mail and was posted at the violation address on February 11th, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 22712, page 1775. During my course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance. to enter into evidence as exhibit one photographs which were taken on February 21st, 2025, documented February C.E.B. 2025, photo numbers 1 through 4. So right here we have the wall and question which is on the red side. You have just repair rate here. Let's see it close. Right here we have the other side of the wall and there's disrepair rate there. Then some more disrepair and you can see some right here, some exposed rebar. And then we have this side and there's some more damage right here on the wall. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence. I'd exhibit two. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. Is there any indication that a permit has been applied for? No. Does anyone have questions for? Good afternoon, good morning, gentlemen. Can you state your names and addresses for the record, please? Mike Adams, 435-123-West and that West Otremba, 435-123 West. He'll need to speak for himself. West Otremba, my address is 1203-39th Street West and Brayton. Okay, and your relationship to HPI self-storage St. Pete LLC? We are their general contractor. Okay. For clarity if I might, we did not build the property. They acquired it. So we were not the builder on the original project, but they got noticed. There was some discrepancy because they closed on the property and four weeks later they got the original notice in 2024. So they bought it and then got a notice. Them in the previous contractor and the previous owner went back and forth about how did you get a CO? Why didn't you disclose this? They made communications with code enforcement for my understanding. Then there was a, oh well, there's a whole issue with this entire wall all the way down with the new apartments and the storage facility and the existing condominium complex. They were going to piggyback on their work because it needed to be done. That did not go well and they basically called us and said, can you help? We built for them all over the state of Florida. We're building their 10th right now. So we said we'll help. We immediately got involved, started issuing you know requiring surveys. We've recently reached out to the city to understand you know we we developed throughout the state. There's trees there. There's somebody else's property. We're going to have to access there. There's also discrepancy on the height of the wall That's required to go in your code references six feet the existing wall is five and a half feet the brand new wall that went in from the other Group is five and a half feet. We didn't want to go and install a wall that was not meeting your intended code So we called code enforcement. They referenced us to the building department. We called the building department. They referenced us back to code enforcement. And then we got a wonderful email from our client that said, oh, by the way, there's a hearing tomorrow. So that's why we're here. And we just want to resolve it. We want to get it off of our thing to do and they want to complete it. But we want to complete it the right way. We don't want to put a $200,000 wall in and then you guys come back and say your six inches short. It doesn't work So we just need clarification or and they want to complete it. But we want to complete it the right way and we don't want to put a $200,000 wall in and then you guys come back and say your six inches short, it doesn't work. So we just need clarification, our architect will put in the site plan. We believe there's going to be a demo permit and we also want to understand if we're required to get a tree removal permit. And if there's a cost to pay in because as he showed, there's an oak tree there that's popping the wall. And we don't, we don't wanna just take the oak tree down because we know how everybody feels about that so we're just here for clarification and to solve it. You're looked like tree damage to the wall. Yep. So how much time do you think you're gonna need to get your permit? To be perfectly honest with you between what I've heard and knowing other jurisdictional time, I think it's going to take at least 180 days. We need to be told by somebody, yes you can do it this way. We need to have the architect draw it appropriately. We don't... Our normal course of business is not just to apply for a permit knowing something might be wrong and wait for you guys to correct it like a bad research paper. We want to go in, accurate with your code and get it approved as quickly as possible. But I do not see that happening faster than 180 days knowing the backlog of stuff that's in every jurisdiction on the West Coast right now. So I would ask for 180 days if you guys deemed that's appropriate. We've spent money, we're actively working on it, but we still need to be told yes, then we have to get it to the architects, then we have to have them draw the site plan. We have to be able to get a scope of work and then we need to submit for a demo permit, possibly a true removal permit. So I think it's 180 days. I mean, it's not a complicated. I don't believe it is. It's just clarification, which we can't get. So is there any way that codes can help facilitate a dialogue with the building department? Yeah, we can certainly attempt to as you all are aware that they're facing an unprecedented amount of work right now with the storm recovery permits and other activity going on with the city so I can certainly try to that they're usually very responsive so we're happy to try and do that. Two-year knowledge and I'm sorry to pitch you on the spot here. To your knowledge is a certain height required? Yeah, I would imagine when that wall was originally constructed, it was part of a development plan and there was a specific height, there was a buffer requirement that was there. So yes, there's probably going to be specific zoning requirements. You know, with the oak tree, I didn't see the layout specifically. There might be opportunities to jut the wall around it to try to save the tree or the tree may just need to come out. So those are things to be considered. But yeah, there is going to be a specific height that the wall is going to have to be built to depending on what the original plans were. Yeah. Okay. I just, I'm not trying to have you give them a final answer at all. But I suspected that there was probably something driving that height. Yeah, the buffer requirement between a commercial property and then the residential apartments that are next door that's built in the code on purpose to minimize the impacts. And again, whatever was originally approved is going to have to be constructed. It, unless there is the potential that the code has changed since then, and there's additional buffer requirements. And now since they're reconstructing the wall, they would have to meet the new standards. But those are all zoning, that's all, stuff that gets worked out through plan review, zoning reviews, building permit reviews. So again, I can understand the requests for the additional time, just based on the workload and understanding what's gonna go into the project. Is there a separate permit for tree removal, or can it be in the same permit? No, they always do those separate the tree removal permit is going to be a separate permit. It's a very simple process, but it's a separate permit. Basically you pay your money you get your permit. They have the arborist come out. He takes a look at it says, yeah, I'm giving you a permit. You pay money. I don't know. It's easy. I'm having trouble with it being 11 months. Me too. Since it was opened in March of 2024, when did you guys actually start working on it, looking to do something about it and make a plan? So my understanding from the owner is that they started coordinating with the city and that there is a record of them coordinating with the city that they were working on it. Our office was introduced to it August 1st or July 29th. As a can you look at this we might be teaming up with this group over here. So from them they were looking for guidance because we developed for them all over the state and they weren't sure if what the other people were proposing was accurate and we went and looked at it and said based on their code and what we're seeing, I'm not sure you want to do that because if you if you do it, it's on your property, you're at risk and now you might have to take it down and do it twice. So that's where the height, the height and again it goes back to how it was originally permitted because it looks like they might be using it as a retaining wall for that entire piece to his to his point Mr. Walls I can't see it from here. Vaughn it's an older development that was redeveloped with apartments in the back and and that piece front. So it was an existing wall that wasn't required to be done during construction apparently because the whole old wall went all the way down this entire development. So one property owner had to replace their piece, this is their piece. The wall that's there now that was just done is five feet six. You're planning and zoning code calls for six feet, which is pretty common for a buffer and opaque, but we just, is it a repair and replace or is it new being held to new code? They want to do what's right. I mean, this is what they do. They want to do what's right, and I don't want to do it twice. But it sounds like you just need to get that... You're going to get your answer when you start submitting the drawings for a permanent approval, right? I mean, you can analyze this all you want externally and try to figure it out, but you'll start getting your answer. But historically that slows down the permitting process. So they don't want to submit it and have it go through multiple cycles over review because typically it's a 30 day review cycle and then oh it's wrong. Then you go back in it's another 30 days so they want to go in accurately. So if you don't want to go through multiple cycles why are you asking for 180 days? Because we have to get the answer on what the city would require in order to get the permit. The two been added for a year. The. It's a. We've. Mr. Wall. It's the wall. Yeah, so it's my understanding that the other portion of the wall was permitted. Obviously all of our permitting records are public record. That's something that could be accessed to determine, you know, that that would give you the pathway forward right there knowing exactly what needed to be done because that was approved as is. I haven't checked a verify my computer restarting right now, but I imagine that, you know, it went through all the approvals that got signed off. And if that's the case, I would imagine that that same design could be mirrored coming down the rest of the way. You get that? Lawton clear? The bottom line here gentlemen is that you need to get the ball rolling. Submitted at six foot and see what they do. Well, clarification though, his is at five six. So that was permitted and went through the process there. Okay. Submitted at five and a half. The starting point. Yeah. Get something going. Because you'll never get done at this point. No problem. I will run that back up to flagpole to him. I'll read something. Do you guys decide? Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issued the following findings of factoring occlusions law. Board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code is stated by the Coase Investigator have not been corrected. The board orders HPI self-storage St. Pete LLC to correct the violations within 90 days or by May 27, 2025. If the order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Okay, let's vote. Aseqlis? No. Burning? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Ancha. Yes, wait. No Wilson. Yes So you have 90 days. Okay, if you don't have an issued permit by then You'll get the note they will get a notice and then one will have to appear before the special magistrate To ask for more time understand. Okay. Thank you. Good luck gentlemen. Thanks. Thank you. Next. Next case, please. Item 136, property owner 214854th Avenue, LLC, investigator for zone 16, David Walker. Good morning. I'm David Walker, codes investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying in reference to item 136. Case 24-18539. Regarding the property located at 2148, 54th AF South, I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a commercial structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a tenant complaint case. This property was first inspected on October 23rd, 2024, and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance date of November 20th, 2024. This property was last reinsinspected on February 19th, 2025, and the following violation still exists. Nails pop, causing wall disrepair were found in the living room area, missing paint on the hallway door on the first floor, anding remainder of door casing in hallway area of the first floor and Disrepair and missing slats of the upstairs back porch area ceiling Four out of seven violations happening corrected since this case began Notice of hearing was sent first-class mail posted at City Hall sent certified mail delivered by certified mail and was posted at the violation address on February 11th 2025 which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county records book 14761 page 0402 during the of my investigation, my last contact with the property manager was February 19th and the property manager 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 one photographs which were taken on February 19th, 2025, documented February CB, 2025, and photo numbers one through four. So right here we have the outside of the apartment. Right here above the door, as you see right here, right here and right here are the nail pops that are coming out of the wall. Right here we have the bathroom on the first floor. That's the door with misting paint right here and on the bottom you can see where all the casing for the frame is all missing. And then right here on the lini, it's not secured right here in the corner and is actually rolling up and there might be a missing slot there also. I would like to enter the spec sheet into evidence as exhibit two. This concludes my presentation. Anyone have any questions for staff? Does any of this work require a permit? All right, could you please state your name and address for the record and your relationship to 2148 54th Avenue LLC Laura Botsford 49 20 27th Ave South Gulf of Florida 3 3707 I'm the community manager for the property Okay, so how much time do you need to finish the repairs that you need to do on this unit? I spoke with a resident Monday afternoon. We had a contractor in there and the resident informed me that the contractor had completed the three items. So it should be resolved. We just need to do a follow-up inspection. So you just need the code's inspector to come back out and take a look. I didn't physically walk the apartment myself um, but I did speak with the resident and they confirmed that the items that he showed photos of, we replaced the bathroom door, and trim the nail pops, and the lini has been resolved. Okay, so my suggestion is that you meet with your investigator outside before you leave and make an appointment to have him come out and take a look. Okay? I'll read some. Anyone to read? Yep. 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 codes investigator Investigator, have not been corrected. The board orders 2148, 54th Avenue, LLC to correct the violations within 15 days or by the date of March 13th, 2025. If this order is not complied with, a fine of $200 per day shall be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in the second. I'm in the second. I'm in the second. I'm in the second. I'm in the second. I'm in the second. I'm in the second. I'm in the second. I'm in the second. I'm in the second. I'm in the second. I'm in the second. I'm in the second. I'm in the second. I'm in the second. I'm in Rock Walker, co-investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference to item 138, case 24-19950. Regarding the property located at 2148, 54th AF South, I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a commercial structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a tenant complaint case. This property was first inspected on November 25th, 2024, and a violation notice was sent to the owner with the compliance date of December 21st, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on February 24th, and the following violations still exist. The dishwasher is in disrepair. The back glass sliding door, leading to the balcony, does not lock. Eight out of 10 violations have been corrected or inactivated since this case began. A notice of hearing was first class mail posted at City Hall sent certified mail and was posted at this violation address on February 11th, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County Official Records book 14761 page 0402. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the property manager prior to today was on February 19th, 2025, and the property manager 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 one photographs which were taken on February 24th, 2025 documented, February CB, 2025 and photographs one through three. Right here we have the front of the apartment. This is the dishwasher in question that leaks. And then right here, this is the door that leads to the back patio and the lock right here is broken and doesn't lock. I would like to enter this back sheet into evidence as exhibit two. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. All right, ma'am. We'll need your name, address and relationship again, please. Laura Botzford 492027. The South Gulf Port, Florida 33707. And I'm the community manager. Okay. So have these items been fixed as well? Actually we fixed the lock, but the contractor was doing a repair for another item and broke it again. So we'll have to do that. And then the other, the dishwasher, my maintenance said it was resolved, but we'll just have to take a second look. Okay. Since it's not. So how much time do you need? I want to request 30 days for the two items should be sufficient. Okay. Somebody want to read something or do you have questions? Thank you. I'll try. Okay. You have a question? No. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move it to... I'll try. Okay. Do you have a question? No. 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 Coz investigator have not been corrected. the board orders 2148 54th Avenue LLC to correct the violations within 20 days or by March 18th, 2025. This order is not complied with the fine of $200 per day shall be imposed. Second. We have a motion in the second. Any discussion? Yeah, my thinking was the same as the last one. I'm a mold and other trip out. And I mean, this has been going on since November, it's just a dishwasher in a lot. Yeah. So that was my two cents. Yeah, I probably should have aligned it with the 15. Did you want to amend your motion? I do. I'll amend the motion to read the board orders 2148, 54th Avenue LLC to correct the violations within 15 days. Or by March 13th, 2025. This order is not comply with a fine of $200 per day. She'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Roll call please. A sec list? Yes. Burning? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Nancha? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. OK. 15 days on this one too. Thank you very much for coming in. OK. I think I have a few more coming up here. Well, go ahead on. Item number 139, property owner 2148,54th Avenue, LLC, investigative for zone 16, David Walker. Good afternoon, I am David Rock Walker. Codes investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference to item 139, case number 24-20307, regarding property located at 214854th Ave South. I was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a commercial structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a code's follow up case. The property was first inspected on November 25th, 2024, and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance date of December 21st, 2024. The property was last reinpected on February 24th,, 2025 and the following violations still exist. Multiple window screens are missing for the tenant occupied units. Multiple window screens at rear balcony are torn. Multiple wastes nest present in the back and front of the building. Areas appealing a chip and paint present for exterior walls at the front and rear of building one. Two out of five 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 February 11, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 14761, page 0402. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the property manager prior to today was on February 19th, 2025. And the property manager didn't 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 one. Photographs which were taken on February 24th, 2025. Documents February CB, 2025 and photo number one through four. So right here we have the front of the structure and if we zoom in right here on these two apartment this one apartment there's no window screens right here on the top you'll notice that there's chipping and peeling paint on this little section. This is the back screen and question that is all ripped and torn right here. After that, we have some more chipping and peeling along the building of building one. building one and then right here we have a bunch of waspsness on the corner of the building behind building one. I'd like to enter this fact sheet into evidence, and this is a bit too. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. Any questions for staff? I do. One question. When you when you showed the photo of the rip screens Was the soft bit in disrepair as well? It was but they fixed it recently. Okay, it wasn't painted But they have been working This case is sort of the outside case of the prior case, which was the inside case. Yeah. They did correct for this one. They corrected two out of five things. And this one they corrected, facious off it, disrepair, and then a exterior wall disrepair. OK. Thank you. OK, any other questions or stuff? Alrighty, ma'am. read on again. Laura Botsford, 49, 2020, 7th out of South. Golfport, Florida, 3, 3, 707. And I'm the community manager for the property. Okay, and how much time are you gonna need on these? With an abundance of caution, I would probably just request 90 days. And the reason is that because it's second story and some of those items since they're up top on it, a contractor and it's a little bit more advanced work, they might need to rent a cherry picker to do that roofing work. And I don't know if that's going to require a permit. That roofing work will require a permit. I mean it's really going to depend on the extent of the damage. It looks like there was some water intrusion that's been occurring so you know if they peel that back and they have to do any structural repairs yes I could require a permit. I mean if you could give me like 120 days I mean I hope to resolve it much sooner than that as my goal to you know do it as fast as possible but extra time is always appreciated. I had a question is this because you have so many issues at this location is this a new owner or is this a new property manager library better? Yes, so I started at this community early January. So I've only been here for a month and definitely been working as quickly as possible to get these resolved in the short time that I've been on site. About the, you mentioned running a cherry picker and maybe roof damage. Is there water intrusion? Is that roof leaking? No, we haven't seen any evidence of water intrusion. Okay. It looks like water damage. Yeah, looks like water, right. Which Get it inside the unit. So if she hasn't gotten inside the unit, she doesn't know if there's any water stain. Right. Or a... damage. Yeah, most like water, right? Which, get it? Inside the unit. So if she hasn't gotten inside the unit, she doesn't know if there's any water stain or above the ceiling. That's my big concern. It looks like it's longer. It goes on. There is a space above that ceiling. Okay, so does somebody want to read something? Do we have more questions? I'll take a shot. Okay. And we can discuss. Based upon the evidence presented in this case, I move that the board issue of 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 in Vesca have not been corrected. The board orders 2148, 54th Avenue LLC to correct the violations within 45 days, or by the date of April been corrected. The board orders 2148 54th Avenue LLC to correct the violations within 45 days or by the date of April 12, 2025. The sort is not complied with a fine of $200 per day shall be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in a second and Jeff, would you tell me again what number of days? 45. Thinking there is if the permits not required, it can get done. If the permits required, then they can come back and ask for more time. I agree. Is everybody OK with that? Yes. That's both. Aseqlis. Yes. Running. Yes. Nider. Yes. Hensha. Yes. Wait. Yes. Yes. Okay, you have 45 days on this one. If you should end up needing a permit, you'll get a notice about a special magistrate's hearing. Please attend that hearing and explain that you need more time. And you will probably get it. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Next case, please item 1299 property on our Osprey Point Apartments LLC investigator, David Walker. Good afternoon, I'm David Rock Walker. Co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference to item 129, case 24-17810, regarding property located at 1955th Ave South. I was sworn in at the speeding. This property is a commercial structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a tenant complaint case. This property was first suspected on October 21, 2024, and a violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of November 21, 2024. The property was last reinspected on February 24, 2025, and the following violation still exists. In the ceiling hallway, it's soft and cracked. And I'll go over the picture and show it and explain it, but it's a soft spot in the ceiling. That's the last violation that remains. Seven out of eight violations have been corrected or inactivated. A notice of hearing was first class mail posted at City Hall, sent certified mail. and was posted at the violation address on February 11th, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to the hearing. The ownership was confirmed in County official records book 21595, page 1032. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the property manager, prior to today, was on February 21st, 2025. The property manager, prior to today was on February 21st, 2025, and the property manager did not indicate when the violation would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $200 thereafter for non-compliance. I would like to enter into evidence as Exhibit One. Photographs were taken on February 24th, 2025, documented February, C-B, 2025, and photograph number one through two. So right here, we just have the outside of the apartment, which is the bottom apartment right here. So the issue is this section right here, when you touch it, it's just soft. It's hard to get a picture of it but it's super soft on the ceiling part. So that's the last remaining violation that remains in this apartment. So you think at some point, oh, never mind, I'm sorry. Oh, okay. I would like to enter this backseat into evidence as exhibit two. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. Now I can ask. So you think at some point that's got wet? Um, yes. I do believe that it's wet. It's very funny because in the picture, it's on the corner and it's almost like. It's just very soft. There could have been some water intrusion at one point with this, but it didn't discolor anything either. And when you touch it, it just springs back. It's just, it's not like a normal ceiling that's just hard. So yes. Okay. Anybody have questions for staff? I didn't feel damp. Nope. It didn't feel damp. Okay. But if you just, it just bounces. That's the issue with it. It's very weird. And it could have just been a previous repair not done in a workman like Matt or they, you know, did a shot you repair on it just to close it up. Yeah. I would imagine. 20 pounds of go. Elmer's in prayers, yeah. Mm-hmm. Already, ma'am, one more time. Laura Botsford, 49, 2020,. Alrighty, ma'am. One more time. Laura Botsford, 49, 2020, 7th, AFS, South, Gulfport, Florida, 3, 3, 7, 0, 7. And I'm not the community manager for this property. The community manager gave notice and they're no longer working there. So there's a staffing. They're trying to fill that position. So I'm just here because it's the same management company. And on behalf of the regional manager, and I know she is working to resolve these as herself quickly. OK, so how much time do you need? I would like to request 90 days for Osprey Point, which is this community for both, just so I can give her the same for both violations. I think there's one more after this. It says seven out of eight have been corrected. Who's been, have you been managing those? Not for this community. No, I just am on the same management company. So I'm representing, but I haven't been actively working on this. We use the same contractor though. Jeno is our contractor for think repairs we can't do in-house. Just a question maybe I missed this. So is the overarching ownership of Osprey and The neighboring communities. Yeah the neighboring communities at the same owner for all these properties. Okay so there's a That current that drywall work is that permit required? If it's a small portion that needs to be done it can just be be a basic repair. Again, if they end up having to replace the entire ceiling, that's a whole different volume. Okay. That's when you open it up. I don't know. I don't like it when I'm here. I'll read something. All right. 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 CozInviscator, not been corrected. The board orders, Osprey Point Departments LLC to correct the violations within 30 days or by the date of March 28th, 2025. If this order is not complied with, fine of $200 per day shall be imposed. Second. Okay we have a motion in the second is everybody who... If this order is not complied with, a fine of $200 per day shall be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in the second. Is everybody okay with the time in the dollar or mail? That's vote. A checklist? Yes. Running? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Ancho? Yes. Wait. Wilson. Yes. Okay, you have 30 days on this one ma'am and my Hope is that all of this is resolved and thank you for being on top of it Item 100 it is item 130 property owner Osprey Point apartments LLC investigator David Walker Hopefully this is my last one Good afternoon. I'm David Rock Walker, Coates investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item 130, case number 24-17818, regarding property located at 1955th AF South. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a commercial structure and is occupied by a tenant. This is a tenant complete case. The property was first inspected on October 1, 2024, and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance date of October 25, 2024. The property was last reinpected on February 24, 2025, and the following violations still exist. HVAC system is not working properly. The pantry doors off track, tub needs to be resealed, observed sealant finish and cracking and cocking around the tub. Dores on the bathroom vanity are missing. There's no stopper in the bathroom sink, interior doors with chipping and peeling paint and holes. The toilet's not secured to the floor, kitchen cabinet with portions of bare wood. Disrepair to the floor near the pantry, uneven floors under the carpet, and back bedroom, and leading into the dining room. Spray foam was used to make repairs in numerous areas of the kitchen included, but not limited to under the sink and the pantry, and spray foam is not an approved method of repair. Poor repair to ceiling in the kitchen next to the light fixture, holes in the ceiling of the pantry, the ceiling in the HVAC closet is collapsing. There's loose outlets throughout the unit, small holes, in the wall behind the bathroom door, multiple windows without screens, the window in the kitchen does not properly lock. Notice out one out of ten violations have been inactivated since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, was posted at the violation address on February 11, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 21595, page 1032. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the property manager prior to today was February 21, 2025. The property manager did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends $25 and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. I would like to enter into evidence as Exhibit One. Photographs were taken on February 24, 2025. Document February CB 2025 and the photos number one through 11. So right here is the front of the apartment in question. So right here is the bathroom. You can see that there's cracking along the wall right here. There is a drawer missing in the vanity. Right here is, there's a drawer missing, but there's also a stopper missing in the sink. This is the bathtub. You can see that there is, cocking is in disrepair all around the bathtub. And right here, this is all chip and peeling. This is water damage in the ceiling. This is the HVAC closet with the ceiling that's falling apart right there. This is the poor workmanship right here next adapters or normal plugs, like they're intended to. This is the pantry door in the kitchen, but right here is this just this hole that's in the floor. And this is some spray foam that was used on a previous fix right here. And there's some in this little corner right here that they plugged holes with. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. Does anybody have questions for staff? I do. So is the HVA system not working? They're complaining. The tenant is complaining that it doesn't work properly. Okay. Yes. Like heat, AC, both. A little both. They just say it's slow. It's hard to prove that sometimes because when I'm there if I turn it on it seems like it's working but that HVAC closet is in major disrepair with that ceiling coming down to photo yeah is this a first floor unit or a second floor unit this is a first floor unit okay thank you all righty ma'am, one more time. Okay, Laura, Botsford, address is 492027th, AB South Gulfport, Florida, 33707, and I'm representing the management for the building, but I'm not the community manager there. Okay, so this one's a little more serious. I would say everything looks pretty easy I think but it is a lot of items so if you could extend the deadline like 120 days that way we can accommodate the residence work schedule and any scheduling conflicts too. Can you relocate this tenant to another apartment? I would suggest that to the regional. I don't know if they have other units that are ready and available to transfer to, but that would be ideal. Sometimes residents don't want to move though because there's a. We understand, but the task list on this one is pretty extensive. Dene, this work require permit. Depending on the HVAC. Yeah, potentially with the HVAC. I mean, that could be as simple as, you know, the duct work coming directly out of the plenum box right there out of the unit isn't sealed properly and that's what it's causing the issues both with the moisture and the sealing collapse and probably not being able to cool the unit but it really just depend on the scope of once they pull that back. And then the sealing too, and you just don't know what's going on. Right. Well, that's somebody from upstairs pouring a bucket of water on the floor. It'd be. Yep. And I've been lying that somebody is in there. And I was going to say, and it's unfortunate that you're here speaking on this one because you've never been inside this unit. Correct? No, not this particular one. I do know that they had the roofs read on recently, and just that was approved. So I don't know if that's related or not, but. From the department, it looks like maintenance has not been up to snuff for a very long time. I think there's like a, I mean, for me, kind of an overarching theme that seems to be just coming out of this owner you're welcome to pass on which is stuff doesn't get fixed unless someone complains right that was evidence in the previous cases it seems to be in this one so it's very disturbing the photos was my own personal opinion, what we just saw. We've got a tenant paying rent for this place. Yeah. With maybe ace. Yeah. All right, I'll... We'll do something. 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 city code is stated by the codes investigate have not been corrected. The board orders, Osprey point, apartments LLC to correct the violations within 30 days or by the date of March 28, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Is everybody okay with the number of days in the dollar amount? Yeah. I think it's too long. I think it's way too long. I can't lend. I can lend. You know, stickly though, it's probably going to take them. Yeah. I understand it. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. I can't. Good luck. Thank you. Here? Yes. So it's just before 1230. I think we still have at least 20 cases to go. So not a situation where we're going to be able to push through and complete the hearing and not take a break for staff and for everybody else. So I don't know if you want to take one more case and then we'll just take a quick 30 minutes after that and be back. Okay. How does everybody feel about it? One more case. Go with that recommendation. Sure. Alrighty. So let's do the next case. 153 is that right? Yes. That's correct. Item 153 property owner, Ava Bryant and James Bryant investigators are item Alendez No address here Yeah, it's either vacant plot maybe My guess it's a vacant plot. Yeah, we're happy It was just a lot The whole city It's a lot can we have I guess we got to wait and listen Give it just one second Well the room players have Good afternoon.. I am Sir Adam Lenders, going to investigate it for the city of San Pidesprar, testifying a reference to item 153, case number 24, 102, 64, regarding property located at, I don't have an address, so I have a partial number. It's 27, 31, 16, 896, 2, 2, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 5, 0. And I was running at the beginning of this meeting. This property is a vacant lot, and this is a co-initiated case. The property was first inspected on June 20, 2024, and it was, uh, in Valhalla, it was sent to the owner by mail on July 26, 2024 The property was last reinspected on December. I mean, I'm sorry February 12, 2025 and the following volitions still remains Prohibited use of building structure or land including but not limited to junk debris, bucket, inoperable vehicles throughout the lot. Oversight accessory structure and other miscellaneous materials are stored on the vacant lot. Zero out of one violation have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted as City Hall censored by me and it was posted at the violation address on February 12, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Honour chief was confirming the account official record and that's book 06443 page 0150. My last contact with the owner, one of the members of the property was back in July 2024. And there was no indication when the violation would be corrected. The department's recommend 25, there is $150 per day thereafter not in compliance. Additional reveling facts in regard to this case. I was in contact with some of the family members a couple of time to try to address the issue with this vacant lot and this is why we are here today because it's not the violations are not corrected. I would like to enter into evidence that CIVI won photos which were taken on February 12, 2025, documents 0, 2, 12, 25-264, ZM, 4-1-5. So this is the picture of the can see vehicles and there's a lot of stuff store, miscellaneous store on the vacant lot. This is another view of the vacant lot. and this is an accessory structure that at one point was smaller and now is oversized. This is another picture where you could see the structure and also have, you know, Ring this repair and you could see, you know, the size of this accessory structure. And this is one of the vehicles with flat tires. I would like to introduce fact sheet into evidence CV2 and this will conclude my presentation. Is anyone have questions for staff? Are some of the vehicles parked on like a driveway or some kind of concrete pad? Yeah, there is a concrete pad. I'm not sure, I think there was a house there before and it got demolished years ago so that concrete pad remains there. Is that part of the, is that a violation? No, not a concrete pad. Not if they're parked on a concrete pad. Well, if the vacanla is is a bacon line, nothing should be there unless it's approved by zoning. Oh, I understand. Okay. If there were a house there, then it's possible. Right. And at this point, you know, there's not only vehicles. There's also commercial, sometimes there's commercial trucks there too. Okay. And what about that building? I don't even know what to call it. It used to be a shit and it's oversized now. So all that requires permit or approval from Sony. So somebody's added on to it? So I'm sorry, what was the question? Somebody's made it bigger? Yes. Is somebody living in it? I sometimes I want to believe yes. OK. OK. Thank you, Miss Montes. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I will need your names and addresses for the record, please. The white Bryant 343613,000,000, sound St. Petersburg floor 3371. They did it by it. The whole thing is the same. Okay, did you say James A. Bryant? I don't know. Yes, what do you say? You're the humowner or the parcel owner? No. Okay. Looks like it's the end. Is this in an estate or the people who own this? Yes, this is a good state family. My mother passed and... Could I have your name and address this one? My name is Craig Bryant, 345-613th Avenue South. My name is Antonio Bryant, 345-613th Avenue South. Are you all children of the people that have passed? Yes. OK. So what's the story with the lot? With the lot, my father pushed it a lot 40 years, about 40 years ago. We've been parking there because long time ago, before they paid the world, they didn't want us parking on the road. So we've been parking in the lot for the longest for years. And there's a fence goes around the whole property. It's not a separate property from Johnson and Wade from it. So to order to get this matter straight out or whatever this was permanent wise, we had to go through a probate situation. Have you started the probate process yet? No, we just come to find out what is actually what we got to do Just had a death. We just lost another brother just No, they moved in the November just passed so the family is counted Boom boom boom moving around situation. So does any of that prevent you from removing the stuff that's on the property? Well the stuff that's there is the cars and stuff we remove every day. We're in the process, the machine in the back. Yes, it's in the process of being repaired to be moved. Okay, do you understand that nothing can be on that lot? Well, that's going to be kind of hard. There's nothing in there. We've been here 56 years, and now you telling us, now we can't have anything on a lot that we've been dealing with for 50 years. My apartment is parked up over 20 years. That doesn't mean that it's legal. We understand what you're saying about it doesn't mean that it's legal, but we being the children of somebody that purchased the property and bought the, compared it to be as one property for his family. My daddy had 10 kids adopted four. So you want all our role, all our cars in the role. We stay on a tee as a tee here at school right there. That that's all we accidentally what they can't be there. So where are we going to you're going to have progn in the problem in the morning time with the school bus you got a school directly around on across the street from us and we own a T we own the T we own our house rents in the middle of 35th street in 13th Avenue so they own the property directly next door but but the two lots are split. Okay. But they converted the lots of bond together, but due to the fact that my mother's past now, you know, it goes back to... Right. So the easiest solution would be just to combine them. Now there's still some stuff that can't be there. You could park your vehicles on that lot. If it was combined with the rest of the property as long as they were all, operable tag, they all met city requirements. But combining those lots is going to be difficult at this point, you know, based on the fact the properties in the state you're gonna have have to go through probate probably before they can actually combine the two back together. So, but I don't wanna sit here and state that combining them resolves all of these problems, you know, because it doesn't, but that is the start to be able to use the property as one, you know, collective property and not a zoning interpretation that this is an individual lock, it's individually parceled off and there can be absolutely nothing on that piece of land. Okay, so In my memory, there's some sort of city process that can help with probate. There is yes, is this Yeah, if this is within the South St. Petersburg CRA, there is a program that's available so we could definitely connect them with that resource. Okay. Because the solution lies at the end of the probate process. Yes. They would not be able to combine those lots until that was all resolved. Or sell it or whatever. Right. Anything. Nothing can happen until probates through. Right. So, there is a city program they can reach out and explain it to you about what can go on. To where they can help you through the probate process. Once the probate process happens, then you have some options. You could sell the land. You could combine the lots. Or you could get rid of all the vehicles. You get rid of the vehicles, that's, you're gonna do that without a doubt. I mean, but the main problem here is that you're in a probate state. That has to get resolved before you're free to act on what you need to do. In the meantime, though, you need to get rid of the cars that don't work. Well, we have did that. We did that in the process for the last week. OK. So any car that's there is movable. It's just one got to be moved. That's the green one. OK. You still got the oversized building. Yeah, and how many gone there with the shed yet, but I'm heading there. Well, shed been there eight years. With that shed. shed been there eight years. Lower eight years, my mother was passed. There was a repair done and a little issue added on to it to keep it's nothing in it. She wants to totally just put some paint on it. So we're doing the process of putting the paint on and she put a stop water on it. This is where we at. It can be tug of care. I get out the fat permit or whatever it is, but we just want to get it resolved. There's been a cause in a real battle in the family. Yeah, I imagine is there anybody living in that? No, it's just a shared for store. No, no. Just for store. Just for store. Alrighty. So what's saying you? How many people are living in your house? It's a four-bedroom house with two members to each room. I'm just trying to figure out why there's so many cars. Because you said we all have to move. Well, you got two cars first. It's only this, excuse me. I'm just trying to figure out why so many cars. There's only three cars there. What's the other one? What? The opposite. Right. It's maybe sometime four, but it's three cars there. Anybody have any other questions? Did somebody read? I don't even know where to start. I'll read something that you guys can decide whether or not based on 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 as stated by the Coz investigator have not been corrected. The board orders the estate of Eva, Bryant, and James Bryant to correct the violations within 30 days or by the date of March 28th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay. What I want to ask you, I mean, we can't hear you right now. I'll get to you in a minute. I promise. Move in the vehicles. When I ask a question to legal, can we put it against the estate when there isn't an estate? The estate is the is the owner's. No, we can. So yes, that would be OK. Yes. OK, it's everybody OK with the number of days and the fine. You reduce the fine? 100 to 100. Yeah. It was. Sounds like it. The recommendation from the city was 150. I'm all right. Do we think realistically that this will happen in 30 days? Well, I was thinking it was just a resident of the cars. I don't know about the building. It all has to be fixed. Yeah. It sounds to me like they're not really moving forward because they haven't done the probate yet. Right. They didn't suspect that's going to take longer than 30 days. Okay. I can imagine getting it after the fact that I'm at fish and I'll take it. When did your mother pass away? My mother passed away about six years ago, but we just had a brother just passed away. And so now we have the probate situation. We thought we just wanted to wait to see what we got to do at this point to get every family member. His kids got to be involved with the pro-based. Here's the phone here. Let's go and see where we land. And we'll back. Aseclis? No. Running? Yes. Schneider? No. Hensha? No. Wait. No. Wilson? No. OK. I just think they need more time. I just don't think 30 days is enough. Yeah. I't. Well, the other thing I was looking at is that zoning prohibit, which did not, I mean, we saw the picture of the building. No, I understand it. But would you wrap in the whole probate? Probably gets more complicated. I'm very much so. Deconstruct the strad, take it back to the original flip. Yeah, the shed thing is probably going give guys the most problem. Because even if you get through Pro Bay and you decide to combine the lots to solve some of your problems with the automobiles, that's good. There's still that building that you're going to have to deal with. I don't know what your thoughts are on it, but you know, so there's that part of the problem that you're still going to have to manage. Even if you get through the probate, combine the lots so that you can park there. It's still oversized and it's not perfect. Yeah, you created a, I know the intent was probably to expand, but when you expanded, you created a problem by expanding, because it has to be permitted to do the expansion. It's just the way the code works. Right. So just wanted you guys to, you know, just realize that. Yeah, be advised. It's out there still. Yeah, yeah. We can. We really can't have this discussion. This is one of this discussion between the four. Sorry. Yeah, we'll go back to you in just a moment, sir Sorry my bad, sorry Let's Besides we somebody needs to read something because we need a motion. Okay. I'll try something Unless you want to go again. Well, she just needs to amend. Yeah, sure Okay, we'll try again 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 has stated by the codes investigator have not been corrected. The board orders the estate of James A. Bryant and Eva N. Bryant to correct the violations within 120 days or by June 26, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in the second. Any discussion? Let's vote. A secluded? Yes. Yes. For any? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Handcho? Yes. Wait. No. Wilson. Yes. Okay. The board's given you 120 days. Please stay in touch with the code's investigator. She will try to help you. Through the probate process and can advise you on what you need to do in the meantime and then going forward after probating We wish you all the luck. It's it's gonna be difficult. I know. Sorry, I ask it. Let's be honest. Okay. Thank you Hey, we're going to adjourn for lunch? We should be back here at... Say 120? Yeah, 120. 120? Yeah. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. 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 go to the head. 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 on the top right corner. you you you . you I'm going to get a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a I'm going to do it 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 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 put it on. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. 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 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 next one. I'm going to put it on the top. Yes. Thanks. 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 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 next one. I'm going to get a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a 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 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 the beach. I'm going to the beach. 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 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 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 gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm gonna go back to the next video. I'm the and . you I'm going to be a little bit more patient. I'm going to be a little bit more patient. I'm going to be a little bit more patient. I'm going to be a little bit more patient. I'm going to be a little bit more patient. I'm going to be a little bit more patient. I'm going to be a little bit more patient. I'm going to be a little bit more patient. I'm going to be a little bit more patient. music Oh to the to to 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 the 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 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 gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. the I'm going to be a little bit more focused on the music. I'm going to be a little bit more focused on the music. I'm going to be a little bit more focused on the music. I'm going to be a little bit more focused on the music. 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 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 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 sorry. . I'm going to go to the next one. and Thank you. and you 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 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 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'm gonna go. [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ baby baby baby baby baby baby baby baby baby baby baby baby, baby, look you and you and I'm gonna go back to the hotel. and you and I'm going to be 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. . Alright. and and Okay. . Thank you. I'm 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 get to the next one. I'm going to do it. . I'm going to put 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 Good Lord is now back in session. If there's anyone here who is going to testify that has not been sworn in, please stand. Clerk will swear you. Everybody been sworn in? Yep. Okay, great. We'll call please. Okay. Ase list? Here. Rooney. Here. Schneider. Here. Hansha. Here. Wait. Here. Wilson. Okay. So we're ready for our next case. It's going to be item 143, property owner, mass jimier, companies, incorporated, zone 21 We go to the next case, please the investigator isn't in the room. Okay Two cases She's coming right now 28 was taken off Okay, she's coming. We can call them. Okay. 28 was removed. Was that a mistake? I don't believe it's a mistake but I will double check but you can call 27. Okay, so 27 was the one I just called. So it was 143 property owner master Meyer companies companies incorporated investigators to write them a land as. Good afternoon, just give me a minute to open this case. Which one we're doing first? 143, cause there's two cases. 143 number 144 was on my agenda says it's removed. If that could have been an error. No, they both are going forward. Okay. So we'll figure out why that's, we'll get fixed. Okay. You're starting with 143. Okay. Good afternoon. I am Sir Ed I'm a land that's going to be a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a at the beginning of this meeting. This property is a commercial structure and is occupied by owners and tenants. This case, this is an internal complaint case. The property was first inspected on May 14, 2024 and Valencia Noticent to the owner with compliance day of June 11, 2024. The property was last reinspected on February 12, 2025 and the following Valetian's to access. Concrete wall is in this repair to include but not limited to broken crack and falling section. A permit is required for the repairs. As of July 28, 2024, the commercial parking area apron was repaired with no active permit. Zero out of one ballad should have been corrected corrected since this case begin. Notice appearing was sent first class mail posted a city hall and sent, and it was, I'm sorry, and it was handed delivered by me to the manager on February 12, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Onochi was confirmed on the official county record and is booked to 502, page 2023. My last contact with the property manager was on February 12, 2025. And they are working on correcting the violation with permits. The department recommends 25 days and $200 per day. They are after nine in compliance. So additional revenue factors permit on file that it remains in process. and it's number 24 0 5 0 0 2 4 3 7. Let's see. So the permit is active, but the work is not completed. I'm sorry. Hold on. I'm sorry. Just give me one of them reading the wrong thing here. No, I did read the right thing. So the department remains in process. So they're still working on that and they're, she'll give you more information about that. And I would like to enter into exhibit one, CEP photos on documents 0,5, 253 and it's two photos. So the permits that they are working on is to cover this wall that is in this repair. And also, there's a second picture. I'm sorry, hold on one second. And there's another picture of that wall. I can't open the picture, be at. Sorry. Look on the name. Yeah. Yeah. There you go. Picture, but it's in the other case. So and that's just a second picture of the annual in this repair. Could you leave that on that picture? I can explain. So, I would like to introduce fact sheet into every next and this will conclude my presentation. Does anyone have questions for staff? Just a quick one. Did you say some of the work has been done or is everything still on progress? There is a during the process of this violation. We also find out that April was done with no permit. And that was added to the case, but it's also on the second case that we had for today. No, the one coming up. Okay, thank you. That was concrete, what is it made of? It is concrete. It just cracking various areas and it's a permit for repairs. It's collapsing in some areas too, so Thank you Good afternoon, ma'am. Could you please state your name and address for the record? Yes, good afternoon My name is Marisol. Hamby. I'm the environmental manager for Mashmyer concrete products concrete company in Florida You need my home address or my business. Home address 99 9960, Heron Point Drive, Orlando, Florida, 32832. H-A-M-B-Y. Okay, so, you're permit. So just kinda to catch you guys up with this. So it's, we're developing the site. We're not building buildings for people. We're actually building structures so we can put our equipment on or our material storage. So there's an original site plan from 1970 that was dug up and basically what we're trying to do is apply for a building permit but we're having discussions with the zoning department to see what they're going to require us for the site development. The site is basically the same thing that it was from the previous owner. We really haven't changed the business use. The only structures that we are going to apply for are actual foundations or walls. There's no health and safety things with these structures. The wall will be part of this big permit or one of the little permits depending on who works with us if zoning zoning's gonna want us to do a complete new site plan, which we're trying to stay away from because the site has a really changed. We're kind of in the same footprint, we're not adding buildings. It's only structures. And then if they tell us, okay, we're gonna do the building permit, and then we're just gonna piece each structure with their different permits, then there will be that wall would be one of them. We are not going to repair the wall. We're probably gonna replace it because the integrity is far gone and it's been gone since before the, we acquired the property last year. So we tried to kinda make it look better on on the first time that it was inspected and I think when we tried to repair the wall it just kind of, it got worse afterwards. In regards to the apron, we just repaired, we did not replace or do anything, we have a pothole in front of the property that we want to fix, but we need a permit for that. All we did was add, you see those structures right there, my storm water drains? I really can't take that wall down because then I have issues with the storm drainage, right? I can put them on the inside and open my property for anybody to walk in there. So I really need to hold onto that wall as long as I can. But what I really want to do is work with the building and zoning and see if we can just kind of do one permit per each structure. And number one will be the wall, the wall, the apron, the driveway, the driveway laying to make the turn. So I mean, it's a big project. We're just trying to work on that. Okay, so here's the deal. If you get your permit, that puts your violation on hold. Yes. So the goal here is to get that permit issue as quickly as you possibly can. Yeah. We hired a permit company that's local because we're based out of West Point. I mean, we're all over Florida, but our company is based out of West Point Beach, so we have somebody here physically representing us. And we've made some progress. We're just waiting for the building department to say, okay, you can do separate permits, and it's already to go we just have to submit Or if we're gonna have to go through a site plan approval which as you know that can take a very long time And that will mean this violation will still be on the books until I can get a building permit So we got drawings we have our DEP permit already We're just you can even file for a permit. Exactly, exactly. And there's been several meetings. That's why we went ahead and hired a local, I think it's sunk coast permitting, so they can kind of help us expedite this, because we can't do any work without the permit. And the repairs were kind of just to make the street better because it was affecting the street. Now we put those green sogs and we sweep every day or we're trying to keep it in house until we can get a permit and actually pay for our yard. Question for the city. Mr. Law. So would a request for a site plan preclude them from replacing that wall? Is it all encompassing or can they just proceed without the site plan? I mean that's going to be reviewed as part of the permit application. So when they go in and say they need to make a repair to the wall, that could potentially come up as part of the review process. Which might stop the perm of review process until they have a side plan. Just trying to say, can't why those can't be independent of one another. It really depends on, and I'd have to pull up the specific ordinance, but a lot of this, especially when it comes to grandfathered, you know, approvals, it depends on how much you are replacing, right? And so if you go over a certain threshold, that's where you have to bring it up to the standards and you need a new site plan, you need all these other bits of information to be along with it. There are times where it's just, we've got an eight foot section, we have to replace. It's an open and closed, pretty pretty easy permit to grab and you're not opening up that other can of worms for lack of better terms but it really just depends on the extent of the repairs that they plan to do and if it crosses that threshold. Sounds like to me that they're replacing. Yeah I think we're gonna have I think we're going to have to do that because it's been compromised for many years. It seems like. It's kind of ironic that you have a concrete wall and poor repair near a concrete company. Oh, it drives me crazy when I go by there and my concrete driveway doesn't look like a concrete driveway. That's not good look for a concrete business. I know, but if you got a permit in place. Speak into the microphone please. Yeah. If we could ask for maybe six months, I know that's pushing it 180 days, but I mean there's, we have site plans, we have everything ready to go. We just want somebody to say, okay, this is what we need to do. and we're hoping that we don't have to go through a whole site plan review because that means probably another year of this like that. Is it your decision to lump the wall replacement in with the big project, or can you just break that out regardless? I guess you're gonna replace the wall replacement in with the big project or can you just break that out regardless and I guess you're going to replace the wall with a new wall somewhere else. So I have to have a building permit for whether it's the wall or something to be able to start right. I know what I'm trying to say is can you can you can you make the decision look we're going to deal with the wall independently of everything else we're going to go file for a permit to replace the wall. I would not be able to but I am pretty sure that if I blow it up the chain they will make a reasonable decision for that but you also if you could consider the fact that we we also have a business to run so we're worried about the cosmetics, but we can't really build anything or really move forward if we don't have not just a wall permit, but the other building permit. So that decision not only affect the decision between zoning and building the permit is going to affect everybody, whether call it wall or foundation or material bins or I think what I heard from the city was that they still might require the site plan. So even they might try to go back at it independent, they might come back and say we need the site plan before we prove the wall. I mean we'll prioritize the wall if that's something that. I get the answer for the whole site. Yeah. I'm gonna read something. Give me a go. Based upon the evidence presented this case, I move that the board issued a 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. order, mash-mire companies incorporated to correct the violations within 120 days, or by the date of June 26, 2025, if this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. We have a motion in a second. Anybody went away and on the number of days or the amount? I'm just I mean if it's not enough they can come back and ask for more time, right? Before the matter straight a cyclist yes running yes Schneider yes, Angel. Yes. Wait. Yes, Wilson. Yes All right, ma'am the board has given given you 100, excuse me, 100 more days. If you don't have your permit by that time, you will receive a notice of a special magistrate's hearing. Please attend that hearing and explain to the magistrate that you need more time and you are likely to get it. Thank you. We'll do. Item 144, property owner, Mashamayar, companies incorporated, investigators, right, and Melandas. So this case is the same violation. It's just a just to address the building. So that's why we have two cases. I am so right. I'm going to go investigator for the city of San Peter but some fitness birth testifying in reference to item 144 case number 24 85 96. And I'm probably regarding located out 44 51 8 Avenue South. I was learning at the beginning of this meeting and this property is a commercial structure occupied by owners and tenants. This is that internal complaint case. The property was first inspected on May 14, 2024. In Valetian notice and to the owner we compliance day of June 11, 2024. The property was last reinspected on February 12, 2025 and the following Valetian still exists. The concrete wall is in disrepair. We broken cracks in following sections and the permit is required. Zero other one, one violation have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first class mail for Cedar City Hall and certified mail. And also it was handed by me at the business on February 12, 2025. The ownership was confirmed in official county records to 502, 2023. My last contact with the many of you was on February 12, 2025. and they are indicating that they are working on the getting this violation corrected with a permit. The department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter, not in compliance. And I would like to enter into evident, I see with one, photos which were taken on 2, 225, 225, 252, 6CM. And it's the same photos, I'm just going to show just one for the apron that it was for the same case, but it was on my other, on my second case. So this is the apron that we are talking that got fixed that also require a and this is the whole business with the walls and this repair. I will let... that also require a supplement. And this is the whole business with the walls and this repair. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence and this will conclude my presentation. Okay, does anybody have questions for staff? The apron, is it the same footprint as was before? Just some curbing on there? Or is it the current? The cur the curve they were in this repair so they fixed it but it requires permit. It's coming right to the curb. Okay, thank you. All right, man, we need your name and address again. Marisol Hamby, environmental manager for Mashmyer Concrete Company, 9.960, Heron Pointon point drive Orlando, Florida 32832 Okay, so what can you tell us about this part of it? The only thing that I can add to that is those were just repairs. We obviously there will be a building permit to actually replace the apron. We put the curves there because we have storm water permits that we need to comply with. And as the trucks were going out and it was raining, it was just going into those ditches. So we were trying to kind of keep those ditches clean and not allow it to go. Plus there was some breakage so we couldn't really sweep in our track out back into the property. It was kind of standard. Right now the problem that we have is that pothole and we would love to fix it, but we can't touch it because that's technically not our property. So, you know, we'll take the hit when it comes to doing stuff out of permit for the little piece of driveway, but I don't want to the road if, so that's two things that are tied basically to the building permit. So the pothole is actually on the city street. There's an actual pothole, right? The pothole was small on the picture, but now it's like, it's big. But it's the street, yes, it's two covers. One city. I mean, could we get being that it's asphalt? Could we get an asphalt company to come and patch it? Just to kind of help with that, we're willing to do that. Yeah, I don't know the history here I haven't seen with the photographs look like previously, but if the apron was in disrepair, with transition properly to the street the amount of heavy equipment that's coming in and out of that location that may have been you know the cause of the pothole that that's there currently and that may be something if when engineering reviews it that gets included into the repair work that needs to be done for the apron. But in the meantime, can they fill the hole? We can send it over to the team, yeah. I mean, if we could just patch it because also think about the human element, our drivers are going and even though there's hydraulics and those trucks, it's still not good for them. So we really want to touch it and fix it. We just don't dare to. It's a I can't guarantee that the city's going to make the repair if their determination is that it was caused by. So the city won't do it. Can they do it? With an apartment. Yes, that's what I mean. That could Is it's only going to get worse? Yeah, and they may they may do a temporary reply that's what I'm saying. I don't I mean we'll pay for What it looked like previously to know if that would be a determination that we made but that that it's not uncommon Where other repairs are made within the city right of way because it's actions from the adjacent property owner. Similar to a single family home that's getting constructed and they break up all the sidewalks, right? That city right of way, but that contractor, that property owner becomes responsible for doing those repairs. But I know particles. And it's like Joe say, you know, they fixed it, they were small before and they fixed it but due to the you know heavy equipment that come through there every day all day it got damaged again and it got bigger okay we'll send it over to them I just don't want to be in a position where it was Mr. Wallace said that it was going to get fixed by the city of the hearings. Because it's not my decision to make. Well, could they fix it and we pay? So for their time and their material, at least so it's not the city taking the hit all on its own. I mean, it's going to be a temporary repair. We're definitely going to have to do a little better than that in the future. If Miss Melendiz has your contact information, I can run it up the chain in our storm or pavement department and then we can let you know. Perfect, thank you. So keep your fingers crossed on this. Yes. Nobody's promising anything. Some car. All right, so it's the same. Yeah. 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. Peter's Proc city code is stated by the code's investigator not been corrected. The board orders, mash-mire companies incorporated to correct the violations within 120 days or by the date of June 26, 2025. If this order is not complied with, a fine of about $200 per day shall be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Is everybody okay with the number of days in the mail? Let's vote. A checklist? Yes. Rooney? Yes. Yes. Han-cha? Yes. Yes. No sin. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Rose, before. Thank you so much. Appreciate your time. Bye-bye. Yes. Same as the last one. Okay. Item number five, property owner James Town Condo Association Incorporated Investigator Brian Odette. Good afternoon, everybody. I am Brian Odette, codes investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying and Reference to Item Number 5, Case Number 2-4, 9-8-77, Regarding Property Located at 11-51-85th Ab North, and I was sworn in at this meeting. Excuse me. The property is a commercial structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a citizen complaint case. This property was first inspected on 6-12-. And a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of 7-8, 2024. Property was last reinspected on 2-6, 2025. And then the following violation still exists. The drain pipe with vents attached to it was installed to the exterior walls of the 1317, 84th Avenue North Building, and will require permits. Notice of hearing or 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 February 6, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to his hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 20386, page 1047. During the course of my investigation, I have not had any contact with the owner. The department recommends 25 days and 200 dollars per day thereafter. There are no additional relevant facts and I would like to enter an evidence as exhibit number one photographs taken on 919, 2020, 25 documents February 2025 CEB and photo number one through three. This is basically the same photo that the next one is. This is the pipe that's been installed on the exterior wall and it's just drainage for the kitchen. this concludes my presentation. So all they need is the NOC? She'll be able to explain a little better. They have a contractor issue going on. But yes, it's just unhold for NOC. Good afternoon. Could you get your name and address for the record please? Yes. My name is Tara McAteer and my address is 321238thway South here in St.P. 33711. And you are... I'm the Community Association Manager at Jamestown. So tell us about the permit. Well I went to the permitting office to submit the notice of commencement we received from the contractor and I was told that the permit application was initiated but not completed by the contractor and the nice lady at the permit office sent an email and copied me on it to the plumbing company that didn't pull the permit. So since that time, they have not responded to that email or any calls or emails I've sent requesting assistance. I was told by the permit office that they have to complete the application process in order for me to be able to submit the NOC. I'm sorry, I don't understand a lot of this. Yeah, so did they say what was lacking in the application? They said the application was initiated but never actually completed. I'm not exactly sure what that means. It sounds like the plumbing company has worked to do as far as completing the application process. And of course, they've already done the job the bill's been paid and we don't use them as a vendor anymore so they're not being terribly cooperative. I've reached out to them. You're still in business? Yes, yes. I've reached out to them probably 10 times over the last six to eight weeks that I've been working on this. because it to be so I guess since they did the work Do they are they the ones that have to complete the permit because I mean if she never gets a hold of them She's got to go a different route. Well Give a new contract right Well the work if as long as the work's done properly there's nothing to fix other than the application process, right? Speaking from a completely construction standpoint, it's a little bizarre to have an interior drain on the outside of the building. Well, true. I mean, it's got a pass inspection. That was a quick fix. Yeah. Yeah, no doubt. I think they thought it was less invasive and it was probably a lot less expensive to do it that way. I wasn't the manager at the time then repair was done. I'm just suggesting that if they're not going to respond to you you're going to have to do something different. Well my next plan is to show up at their office and beg for their help. I'm not quite sure what else to do. You'll have to get a different plumber. You're going to have to get a different plumber. They're going to have to reopen and permit and go through the inspection. And hope for the best. And hope for the best. If this company isn't going to do anything, that's the procedure. I mean, you can do, you can certainly pursue the avenue you're pursuing. We're just suggesting that eventually, you're going to realize they're not interested. They've got their money. they're done. You're going to have to go a different route to get this issue. Yeah, I didn't know there was a different route, so I appreciate the advice. Okay. It's just that we're seven months in on the violation. I understand. I started at this community and with this company on November 1st of 24. So as soon as it was brought to my attention, I started trying to comply. Sorry for your luck. Does somebody want to read something? I was hoping for more than the 25 days to try and get it resolved. So I waited around. Yeah,'s see what they decide. Okay, based upon the evidence presented, in this case, I move that the board issue the following findings of fact and this is a law. The board finds that in the violation of the St. Petersburg City Code, as stated by the Coals and Bessigard have been corrected. The Board orders the property owner, James Town Condo Association Inc. To correct the violation within 60 days or by April 27th, 2025. If the order is not complied with a fine of $200 for a day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion. Second, and your discussion. It's too long. Too long, but I'll say no. The man. Okay. Oh, to time. Let's go ahead and vote. A cyclist? No. Running? Yes. Snyder. Yes. Hanchha. Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Okay, ma'am, you have 60 days to try to get that permit to pop out the other end. Okay. Thank you. If it should not, you'll get an evidence to appear before a special magistrate. Please attend that meeting. You can ask for additional time if you need it. All right. Well, deal. Thank you. Next case, please item number 150 property honored Deborah Simmons and Randall Simmons investigator Zerad Amalundas Good afternoon. I answer right. Amalund is going to investigate it for the city of San Pidesburg Testifying in reference to item 150 case number 2418288 regarding property located at 442518 Avenue South. I was running at the beginning of this meeting. This property is a multi-family and is occupied by a tenant. And this is a tenant complaint case. The property was first inspected on October 29, 2024, and Violation noticed that to the owner, we compliance day of December 11, 2024. The property was last reinspected on February 12, 2025, and the remaining violations and the following Violation remains. Interior walls aren't just repair in multiple areas to include but not limited to holes, cracks in the walls just outside the kitchen. Bathroom wall is cracked and peeling off. Silling is in this repair in Seymarow's area to include an unlimited to drywall and paint cheap in peeling in the bedroom, where light fixture is missing. Silling crack and buckle in room just outside of kitchen door. Bathroom ceiling has cracks and water stain. Living room ceiling has crack and water stain. Life picture is missing in the back kids bedroom and wires exposed in the hole in the living, exposed in the hole in the ceiling. There's a hole in the ceiling. Addic assets panel cover is missing and addic opening is not secure or sealed. Evidence of rodents throughout garage structure to include but not limited to. I'm sorry, hold on one second. There's a nest of insulation on the kitchen cabinet, drive-wall ceiling that is chewed in the garbage laundry area. And a professional terminator is required. The front door has broken wood around the framing and does not lock properly or safety. The front door area floor and threshold is in this prepare with right wood and a small piece of wood has been placed on top of it. The plumbing pipe in the garage laundry area are leaking and have been duct tape. There are no working smoke detectors in the apartment. Cereal out-of-night violation have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent for glass mail and posted as city hall censor the file mail and it was posted at the address on February 12, 2020, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Honor she was confirmed in the official county record book 18502 page 0804 and my having had no contact with the owner into today. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter not in compliance. I would like to enter into evidence exhibit one C e b pictures document zero 0221, 25288, ZM421 through 12. So this is the front elevation, and the apartment in question is where the tenant is and this, you know, the back unit. This picture that I'm going to open now is the attic panel that is missing and it's damaged. Well, it's not missing. It's damaged. And it's not secure. This is the bathroom wall that is in this repair. This is the bedroom ceiling that is cracked and in this repair. This is the door frame as you can see it's in this red pair as well. There is an open hall on the wall. There's a light fixture missing with, you know, casa open hall on the ceiling. And this is the plumbing that is in this repair and cover with duct tape. And there's another picture of the back structure where the tenant was living. And this is the picture of the rodent. I believe this is insulation and this was done by rodents. And there's another one this repair. I would like to introduce fact sheet into every in a civic to and this will conclude my presentation. Okay. Does anybody have any questions for staff? Was this codes initiated or tenant initiated? This was a tenant's complaint. Tenant complaint, thank you. And your fine was $100 per day. I thought it was a multi-family. The owner lived in the front unit. OK. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Please give us your name and address for the record. Randall S. Simmons,25, 18th Avenue, South St. Petersburg, 33711. Okay. So you've had four months, you've made no progress. I bought this building 20 years ago. This is a stepdaughter. I've been divorced 13 years from her mother. That's why Deborah's name's on it, but I've had no contact, no nothing with Deborah in 13 years. This kid squatted in there that building is not in any way safe to be in. I Turn around the second year, you know, 19 years ago and made it homestead. It is taxed homestead. It is not rental. She is not a tenant. She has no receipts or paperwork of any kind. She's taking advantage of her mother and I. So, I don't want that building in repair or anything else. I wanted somebody. I talked to Margie, give it a note on my door in the end of last year, but before I was heading for Maine for Christmas. And I said to her, she's taking herself down to me doing this. I don't know what that she's doing, but she is not a tenant. I would appreciate if you would inspect the building in the New Year's, at the start of the New Year, because it's Christmas, if you saw the little girl there. So, as far as the, I have the four letters registered here and believe it or not, I've never had this happen and 20 years of being down there I never got any of until February So every time you were finding me and doing this and doing I had never had a letter till February not one that's supposed to office and I can prove it because I signed them for For them all at once So all the way around a lot of I'm getting shoved under the bus here over nothing You know what I mean? I don't know what you would do with that building other than it's a garage, but I don't want her in there. I've had the police there many times. Lately even, she shoved my motorcycle over and did over $1,000 damage, spiting me because of telling her to get out. Get off my property. You don't like this stuff. I didn't ask you here. So I don't mean to sound sad, but I took care of this girl since birth. She was a stepdaughter, so. Does she have to be evicted? I would imagine so, but she's never was allowed in at the start with and I would be going against tax on homestead if I did take rent. So I don't know if that's any proof of anything, but I turned a multiple dwelling into homestead 19 years ago. Okay. Family or not? It's not an eviction. It's not meant to be rent. It's not even insured. And it's not structurally sound. You should be able to see that in that bill. The whole building is twisted if you see it in that picture. There's one wall really weak. I wouldn't say condemnable, but I don't want it as an apartment. I didn't buy it in that picture. There's one wall really weak. I wouldn't say condemnable, but I don't want it as an apartment. I didn't buy it as an apartment. So your plan for the building is to demolish it? Not really. I mean, it wasn't hurting anybody sitting there. And it was, you know, I was using it as a garage. I was a lawn man. So I had a three-car garage. I bought it for 130,000, 20 years ago. I figured I was stealing the time to me. It wasn't my home when... Here's the bottom. So I had a three-carriage. I bought it for 130,000, 20 years ago. It figured like I was stealing the time to me. You know, it wasn't my home. Here's the bottom line, sir. You have to get her out and you have to either fix it or you have to take it down. Well, one way or the other. But obviously she's put it into something that I have to do something now. but my ex-wife's name's on obviously on the deed. She said, no, nothing, never paid a bill in 13 years at a divorce. something now but my ex-wife's name's on obviously on the deed. She said no nothing. Never paid a bill in 13 years at a divorce. I would strongly suggest you get confident legal advice. I am. I just now have legal aid on this form. I was going to show you right on my phone. I got a call I'm going to get out of here to see if legal aid will help me on it. If not then I'll have to go to the bar and find somebody that's in real state. But I kind of mentally collapsed after my wife walked out 30 years of marriage and didn't really care. Now all of a sudden, I'm going on 70 years old and got this on my back. So I know now I have to do something, that's for sure. I'm not to mention the storm hit me twice and I'm in the middle of FEMA trying to get help. How much time do you trying to get help. How much time do you need to get? Long as I could have because I don't know what I'm going to do here as a retiree of, you know, 69 years old. And I'm not living in that dump because I got money. I see a question for the city. So if he's able to evict the tenant, what happens with this case? Is it still remain active? Because now you have evidence of everything that's kind of inside the property because I don't know if it really saw anything exterior. Yeah, I mean, interior, he did all that, believe it or not. Violations would be inactivated, but if we have an exterior case, which I imagine we do, which should be the next case, and it's not, we would have one after this hearing. Right. You know, based on those conditions, there's clearly some settlement, other issues going on there that need to be addressed. Right. So the interior stuff would just be inactivated, but the condition, right, would be this case, but the condition of the exterior, which is in the next case, that would continue to move forward no matter what the occupancy status was. I'm just looking at the interior, just this case in particular as to how we are supposed to look at it and guidance maybe we can provide. Yeah, I mean, you know, the civil matter between him and the occupant obviously to make a decision on as to whether or not he's going to move forward with having them removed from the property. And until that happens, this case would continue to move forward because we have a dwelling that's being occupied that has interior violations. Okay, thank you. And this is okay that she has no rent receipts of any kind, no paperwork of any kind of being that building, other than she turned the electorate on. So that's not our purge. Okay, I just say, you know what I mean, I'm gonna go through all this to get her out of a building that I never let in to start with. That's why she turned me on you because she has got me in a sense. But yeah. You're usually good advice and we're not. Yeah, no, no. And I'm sorry that I didn't show up like I say. I come back after my oldest daughter from Maine in January. And I never get any of these registered letters till the February, first week of February. I design for them so it should be on record with the post office on 22nd. So, and kind of a one-of-a-situations. I've heard one all day sitting here, but, you know what I mean? I'm in the middle of a mess that I didn't create. We can't tell you what to do. Yeah. She's not supposed to be there, and you want this case to go away and you've got to go through the process of getting her evicted. If I'm going to try to... We can't tell you what to do. Yeah. She's not supposed to be there. And you want this case to go away, then you've got to go through the process of getting her evicted. If I'm going to try to get the... But if you do want her there, then you've got to take care of all these things. Nobody there. Nobody there. But I think that's your path forward. So you've got to make the choice of what... That's your choice to make. The biggest fight will be trying to get the ex-wife's name off. The deed is the thing. The ex-wife is backing her in a sense. See? I don't know how to evict her when the... Again. The biggest fight will be trying to get the ex-wife's name off the deed is the thing the ex-wife is backing her in a sense See I don't know how to a victor when the yeah, I mean the middle of a mess Well, we can do is give you time to fix it. Well, I swear to God if it means nothing else that I am Dealing with it right now. I'm gonna try to get a lawyer and legal aids I'm gonna call him back there on the phone right now there I'll read it. I'll read it. You see if I'm eligible. I don't know how it couldn't be. We're going to read now. Okay. you to lawyer and legal aid, I'm going to call them back there on the phone right now there. I'll read it. You see if I'm eligible, I don't know how it couldn't be. We're going to read now. 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 is stated by the Co's investigate, I'm not incorrect. the board orders, Randall Simmons and Debra Simmons to correct the violations within 60 days or by the date of April 27th 2025 if this order is not complied with a fine of a hundred dollars per day shall be imposed Second, okay, we have a motion and a second any discussion Okay, let's let's go. A sec this? Yes. Rene? Yes. Nighter? Yes. Ancha? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Okay. Mr. Simmons, you have 60 days to get the ball rolling on this. If you should need more time, if it takes longer than 60 days, you will get another notice to attend those special magistrates hearing. Okay. Make that hearing and talk to the magistrate and tell them that you need more time and they will probably give it to you. Well, as I said, I don't want to do anything to the apartment. I don't want to fix anything. It's not an apartment to me. So much that you're going to have to do. Yeah. Well, if it has to be torn down, it'll be torn down. That's all. Not fixing anything. It's 100 years old, Jack. Truth. Item 151, property owner Deborah Simmons and Randall Simmons investigators are right on Melinda's. So this case is for the exterior. I am so right I'm a Linda's go investigator for the city of San Pidesburg testifying in reference to item 151 case number 24191 16 regarding property located at 442518 Avenue South. That was running at the beginning of this meeting. This property is a multi-family and is occupied by owners and tenant. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on 1031st, 2024, and Valetian noticed into the owner we compliance day of November 1st, 2024. The property was last reinspected on February 12th, 2025, and the following violations still exist. The rear accessory garage structure has bare unpainted wood and peeling and cheap in paint throughout the entire structure, including wall-soft, facial windows and door trim, rear ste stairs, railing, garage door, and etc. Accessories, garage structure is in this repair to include but not limited to Rade Wood and missing wall, citing on the side. I mean, I'm sorry on the walls. Rade Wood on the window seals. Rade right of the windows, right of the windows, right of the windows, right of the windows, right of the windows, right of the windows, right of the windows, right of the windows, right of the windows, right of the windows, right of the windows, right of the windows, we can, oh I'm sorry, move, when walk on. The stairs railing is not installed for code with lattice not being the approach safety material for stair railing baluster pillars pillars blue tarps on roof is indicating that the roof is in this repair the main structure has bare unpainted wood and peeling, chipping, and in various areas of the stereo, but not, on the stereo, to include but not limited to walls, door, window, trims, fascia, and stuff it. The front fascia and stuff surface is damaged and falling off. Several areas of the roof have visible holes and shingles in this repair and damage. Rear door has rudded wood, holes and broken glass. Window glass is falling and no longer attached to the window frame. And there's several areas of the exterior walls that have rotted wood missing broken wall siding, rotted wood on the trim. And let's see. Zero outer A ballad should have been corrected since this case again. the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and uh and days prior to this hearing. Honour ship was confirmed in the official county record, book 185.02, page 0804. And I did not have any contact with the honor prior to this hearing. The department recommends 25 days and $100 for day thereafter, not in compliance. I would like to enter into evidence, a CV1 photos, which were taken on February 12, 2025, document 2, 12, 25, 25, 116, 1 through 6. So this is the front elevation of the front structure. And as you can see, there's a roof in this repair. The front stairs aren't this repair. The door frame is in this repair. There is an open. There's an open hole by the young fascia and suff it. And there's rudderadywood missing paint. And there's another picture of the roof in this repair and you can see, the facial material hanging off is not secure and you can see the tarp indicating that the roof is in this repair You also could see peeling paint on the wall This is one of the on doors that is rotted and You could see the door frame in this repair and also the siding and the threshold. This is a closure picture of the front steps and you can see all the crack and the gap and missing concrete. And this is the back structure. You can see the garage. There's four by four or two by two holding this door because they won't last day close and you could see all the sighting that sighting and this repair and the peeling paint on the side This is another the same of the back structure we broken windows and you could see in the other side of the structure all that is prepared on the exterior wall and there's a closure look of that door, garage door in the back. You can see the peeling paint and the window seals in this repair. There's some broken glass on this window. And these are the stairs. Let us, it's not secure and it's in this repair. These are the stairs in the back and you can see the railing also that is in this repair and the other section of the on lettuce is in this repair as well. There's more exterior wall in this repair and the tarp on the roof. I will answer this fact sheet into exhibit two and this will conclude my presentation. Thank you. Does anybody have questions for staff? All right, sir, we'll need your name and address again, please. Now, now, make a statement. After you give us your name and address. OK. Randall S. Simmons, 44, 25, 18th Avenue, South, St. Petersburg, 33711. The blue carps are from the Army of Engineers because of the hurricane. The soft bits off there is probably the hurricane. Not back when Margie and I were talking. Now that was damaged. I've already put three windows of pains back into these bad frames, as she's saying. And that was 400 a piece. roof I have have an estimate on me for 10,000, and that's woodworking, all those sockets and that. But I live in the house. The house is my residence, and it's the whole property's mine and it's zoned. Homestead. There is no rental in the back. She squatted. Before we go there, and we don't need to hear that again. Okay. The conditions on this property did not happen overnight. Not on the back, that's for sure. The war of the hurricane, sir. That rotted wood took years. But it blew off in the storm. Honest of God it did. That front part. Yes, sir. That what? Yes, ma'am. Maybe one little part. No, the whole piece. Here's the deal. You can't own a home. the storm, honest to God it did, that front part. Yes sir. Yes ma'am. Maybe one little part. Here's the. No, the whole piece. Here's the deal. You can't own a home and just leave it. You have to do ongoing maintenance to it. Yeah. Whether it's the front house or the back house, whether you live in there or whether you have a Martian in the apartment. I realize that. you have to maintain your property and you haven't been doing it. I'm retired with nothing of a so security hardly and divorced so I don't know what to say if that's not an excuse, but this long, you know I'm ready to do something about it right now But not really economically Does the back unit have separate power from the? Absolutely, and I had it all replaced when I bought it 20 years ago. All the electrical in both buildings, all the sockets, all the boxes, all the masks. Make it instead of turning the power off to the back. I can, it's in her name. Nope, you can't do that, it's in her name, but she didn't have to have my permission to turn it on. That's the weird thing. So I think as we have said earlier, you know, our goal here is to try to give you time to get the repairs done. So the question I have is you've heard all the testimony, right, from the city, what's your reaction of that and what are your plans? I thought it was allowed to leave it and use it as a garage and that's whatever. No, no, no. So what are your plans? You've got a front structure. Well, I've called a roofer. You've got a front structure and you've got a back structure. Yeah. With their insurious, disrepair externally. We've already talked about the interior of the back unit. So what are your plans to get this resolved? I live in the front house, I'll do what I can to do that back door. I'm trying to get roofers to do the whole roof because it all peeled back and ceiling damage and everything in the storm I was in the building it was quite a trip and and so how much time do you think you need okay I don't know whatever you can give me because I sure don't know I'm gonna to pull it off if I don't get a fight from my ex-wife because I start talking to again lately and we're doing pretty good. This kid's kind of the cause of our divorce. So if she doesn't fight me on it, then I'll make every effort I can. All right, I'll read something. Based on 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 Cozen Vesca have not been corrected the board orders Randall Simmons and Deborah Simmons to correct the violations within 60 days or by the date of April 27th 2025 if this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day. She'll be imposed. Second. Okay. We have a motion in a second. Is everybody okay with the amount? And I just want to talk with the sign. So I mean, I can. Okay, let's vote. A sec list? Yes. Running? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Hancha? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. All right. You have six years on this one. Two Mr. Simmons. Again, you'll receive notice of a special magistrate hearing if this isn't fixed by that. When Margie originally approached me and we talked on the phone for half an hour, so she knew the situation, they were going send an engineer from the city to come down and like a told her, it's not safe. Anybody with a license can see that. Or we're done now, we need. Okay, that's my approach is all I'm saying. If you have further questions, please speak to your code's investigator out in the hall and she can help you. Okay. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Next case, please. Item number 80, property owner, Cynthia is candor and Adele is candor. Investigator for zone five. This is the handle. And the other side at this meeting. The property is a single-family structure and is occupied by owner. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on June 10, 2024 and a violation noticed sent to the owner with compliance date of July 3, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on February 19th, 2025, and the following violations still exist. Junk and outdoor storage present, including but not limited to construction materials, windows and roof tiles, appliances, and various objects covered with tarps. A boarded window at the rear of the property needs a permit to enclose or replace. And the dock is in disrepair and not in working order. Two out of five 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 February 11th 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing Ownership was confirmed in county official records book 0 9 6 8 4 page 0 6 8 2 During the course of my investigation my last contact with the owner prior to today was on February 19th 2025 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 regarding this case. The property hasn't approved. Post-disaster emergency permit, number 24 2411003948. However, windows are not covered in the scope of work approved under this permit. I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on February 19th, 2025, Document 02192567 TGH, and photo numbers 1 through 10. This is an elevation shot of the property, and you can see some of the prohibited outdoor storage items in front of the structure appliances various items covered with tarps ladders so on I'm additional prohibited outdoor storage, just five gallon buckets, what appears to be a yoga ball, various metal items. prohibited outdoor storage. Further outdoor storage items covered with tarps, milk create more five gallon buckets, plastic tote bins. This is a palette of roof tiles that is on one side of the property and properly stored outdoors. This is the rear of the property. Here you can see the boarded window that is going to require a permit to repair a replace. More prohibited outdoor storage items. You see items stacked covered with tarps along the rear of the property. This is also the dock that isn't disrepair. There are no wood boards across the dock here. Don't forget to give them the papers. Right away. Just a closer photo of some of the prohibit outdoor storage at the rear of the property. Closer look at that boarded window and some further prohibited outdoor storage. Those are windows leaning against the boarded window. just a closer look at the dock that is not in working order. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you. Can you tell me when those pictures were taken? Those pictures were taken on February 19th. Okay, so do we have pictures from the original inspection back in June? Yes. There we go. That'll be different. Is there a meaningful change? No. There were two Two violations have been corrected, one being landscape maintenance was corrected. There were previously decorative shutters around the rear windows that were in disrepair and those were removed so that violation was brought into compliance as well. But the junk and the outdoor storage. That's remained largely the same. I can show you the pictures from June of last year. OK. I'll take your word for it. It will be different. Does anybody else have questions for staff? All right. Good afternoon. Could I have your names and address? Good afternoon, man. Yes. Myander. I live at 1445 Brightwater's Boulevard, Northeast, St. Petersburg, 33704. Thank you. And you, Cynthia, Scander, 1445 Brightwater's Boulevard, Northeast, St. Pete, 33704. Okay. So, what's your plan for your presentation? Yes, ma'am. Just to add to I think the inspector have forgotten that there was a boat, that the ask us to remove it, it was a very big or deal for us, because a boat was not operating, but we ended up actually donating that boat. We just lost all the money in the boat. It was about $150,000. We gave it away so we can get rid of the boat because we couldn't do much with it really. So I guess he did not take notice of that. But we wrote here some papers for you if you'd like to... Can we give them to you? ...to look at them. They're very simple, you know, a few points. One page. And also there are some pictures before and after, you show that we put big efforts there. Unfortunately, the hurricane... It's one for everybody. The pictures we have to keep. You can keep them. You can keep them. It's all for you. Show them for an afternoon. OK. Show them for an afternoon. Like this. OK. One page for everybody. And thank you. Thank you. So the hurricane have put us back after we did a lot of work and we had to put our furniture outside because we got flooded. Right. Here's my problem with that, sir. The reason I asked the investigator about the early pictures was that he is telling me that there was a lot of stuff outside before the hurricane. Yes, thank you. Everybody understands that the hurricane dealt you a blow. Yes, yes, yes. I'm just making a point of the boat was a significant thing. We moved it. It was very hard because it was not operating too. So I had to donate it to somebody. Also after the hurricane, our furniture have to go outside and waiting for, until now, we are waiting for the adjuster to finish. Looking at the material, they put us behind just like what happened also with the permit. I have applied for permit to correct the damages after the hurricane because we had flood inside. We cut the walls to be supposed to be cut like I think is four feet up and cleaned it to remove all the trash out. The trash was so huge. was piled, you can see that on the curb after the hurricane, there was really a number of dump trucks went out to take in that pile of leftovers. So it's really been a struggle. Can I add a couple of things? Sure. Okay. On the appliances that he's showing in the photos, those are not the appliances that were there before the storm. We got rid of those. Those are appliances that were created again having to bring the things out of the garage. We had to bring them outside of the house for two, for the, well, we didn't want to leave them because we're doing some work. One, and the inspector was looking maybe the stuff is a little bit better for them to go through it altogether, outside. And that's why it's covered with starps, until the end. If I could also add that there is no out of order or not working window, that window was boarded up for the hurricane. And it doesn't need to be replaced or repaired. It's in working order and the permit is not included for replacing a window because there's no window to be replaced. The window exists, it's there. But we were covered certain several windows. We took some out after the hurricane. But this is a particular one, it's just in the face of the, it's so, it's so fearful that the hurricane is very make us tremble, you know, I never seen such a thing. And the other issue would be the dock. We repaired the dock and the hurricane came and took the whole top off the dock again. So we're right back where we started or on the dock. It's actually, it's almost gone over it. I mean, the hurricane did gut it out. I don't know what it would went. Stop. Do you have any photographs showing clear property? No garbage anywhere? Repair deck. Do you have any pictures? Well, you have some, I'll show you, before and after. There's still stuff in those pictures. Well, there are some stuff there because the adjuster has not done and insurance company did not approve the damages. They said if you threw the stuff away, it's in you. Even if you take a picture, we don't know where the picture's coming from. So we're hoping to cover some of us. We're going to catch 22 per se from those other items. Let me cut to the chase here for a minute. When this first started back in June, there was no hurricane. Correct. You had a jump everywhere. Correct, yes. We moved all the windows. All the windows, all the tires, all the so-called tires, everything's gone. All removed. OK. So what you're telling us now is that the junk that's there now is hurt. Yes, ma'am. And it was worse, far worse than that. Far worse. Every day we're feeling. We look at the picture outside. We've moved all the junk that was found in June, but the storm created more junk. Oh Lord, yes, yes, yes, yes ma'am, piles. You can look at the picture. But the stuff that's there today, is it, are you planning on getting rid of it or is it? Yes, yeah, we want to get rid of all of it. We're waiting on the adjusters. Just the justice to pay. FEMA will come and after you have a settlement with the insurance company, then FEMA might be able to help us with any Tools that were lost. We lost a lot of stuff. Mr. Wall Is there any way that Maybe the coach investigator and a supervisor could go look at this property and compare jump to jump? Yeah, absolutely. I'm we were happy to meet at the property to review what can stay what needs to go. Because here's my concern. This was a citizens complaint. And whether or not the junk was there from inattention in June and got cleared and then came back because of the hurricane damage is immaterial to the people that are looking at this. So it's been what, eight months of junk? Five since Hurricane. Six, seven, little longer from the original complaint. I just, I would like some way to resolve this so that the homeowners can do what they need to do and the people around them aren't burdened by this. Do you see any way out? I mean the permit that's been issued or is being issued, I'm not clear on the special hazard permit thing. Yes, so that permit is to repair storm-related damage. Right. So the post-disaster emergency permits are to correct any damage, bring the property back to pre-storm conditions. So if that window, there's no issues with it, that board can simply be removed at this point and that would resolve that violation. And then it's just a matter of getting the outdoor storage corrected, which as I referenced earlier, we'd be happy to meet with them at the property to review a can and can't be stored outdoors. OK. So has that permit been issued? Is it? It has been issued, yes. But there's stuff between work and a hard place because of FEMA saying you can't remove it. Right. I understand. Yep. So it's like a catch 22. Is that that must be something that's incredibly common after the storm that we're the city's saying look this this stuff is junk you need to hear rid of it and the FEMA or insurance companies are saying no you can't is that a common thing that we're running into all over the place? I wouldn't say we're running into it all over the place. I mean, we completed our debris removal. You know, I think it was in January, so it's been a little bit over a month now. There certainly could be claims that are taking longer and justors that are taking longer to get out there and review those items. I wouldn't say that it's something that we're seeing widespread throughout the city. Obviously, if that was the case, we would be more mindful of moving something like this specifically forward. If we knew that this was something that was happening quite frequently. And again, I think the other piece of this is there are some items. yes, that probably are related to that process and other items that aren't. And that's the part you guys could play, hey, this can stay, this can't. We would be able to, I guess, understand better the items that are being reviewed from an insurance standpoint, not to say say that this can stay here but we understand that this is related to that activity right but these other things you know they they have nothing to do with your claim these have nothing to do with anything else and these would need to be removed exactly yeah I thought you said everything and you correct me if I'm wrong. I thought you said everything that was outside out front, you didn't want anyways. Right? That you were going to throw away? Yes. Tires went away. There were some, but everything that's there right now in those photos, I thought you said you didn't want any of that. That's there right now. Sure. I don't want them, but I want to get paid for them. OK. That was awesome. You want to get, all right. You want to get, that's where I was going was. They're calling them right to your point then. Because that was a disconnect for me. That's all. We need to give them a time for a few minutes to come out there and do what they do, or the insurance investor to come out there and do what they do. And in the meantime, maybe codes can help them sort through we're come out there and do what they do or the insurance officer to come out there and do what they do. And in the meantime, maybe codes can help them sort through. We agree this can stay, but this doesn't make any sense. It should go now. I mean, if they really don't like it, can't go in the garage. Yeah, really? And I had a question, where are you in that process? Like, have you filed a claim with your insurance? Oh, yeah. Money is been sent to the bank and the bank is holding money. Some of the money we sent to the bank. Okay, so your insurance claim is settled. No, not it's not settled. No, insurance claim is not settled. It's still undergoing because they have to verify themselves. They were, they couldn't go through all the items at once. I guess they were backed up busy whatever. So they went through some and some, we got them outside so we can go through together at once. So I did. So they give you another effort, but... They'd given you a partial payment then. We've been... Yes, yes they did. But it went to the bank. Everything was a living. The bank was holding the money. The bank kept the money. It would not... Relatively. Even we did all the gunning. We did all the gunning. It was a huge big job. The medication. I personally did a lot of it because I couldn't get a contractor to do it right away, despite I have a hard condition, but I did it. So we're trying to well we got what we're having to do is to try and assess How much does it give you so can you give us do you have any sense of is it 30 days is it 60 days when you think some of this Will be resolved such that you can deal with some of this stuff that's in your front yard and in your backyard. Can you, do you have any sense of that? I'd say, you know, if it was your generosity, if you allow like 120 days, so we have all the time to remove. Some of the stuff is very difficult. But I don't want them those tiles have been Begging the truth or to come and get them and the promise promise and promise and then My wife advertise them to give them for free. Yeah, but if somebody want to want to take them Couldn't get them so this is gonna be a heavy item. We have to deal with it because it's too palatable Take a little time. You need a fork lift We got rid of tires. We got rid of those I guess More of a constraint or probably to us to try and figure this out is how long until you can even start that process You're saying you can't move anything until FEMA or your insurance company somebody gives you the okay. Oh, we how far away from, we from that? Yeah, I would hope in the next month or so they will be done reviewing the stuff because I personally don't want to, that stuff to be set around. It's not good for me either. You know, coming out of silence, looking at the stuff, I'm not pleased to look at it. I can try. 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 codes investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Adele Ascander and Sithia Ascander to correct the violations within 90 days or by May 27th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a find of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay. We have a motion in the second. Does everybody okay with the time and the dollar? I just took a cut at it. Mm-hmm. Let's vote and see where we are. A checklist? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Ancho? No. Wait. No. Wilson. You skipped. Yes. They stepped out. Yeah, I did. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't notice. Yes. You really do. So, um, if it should come to pass, that you don't have your permit or that you have not gotten the junk removed and things are still a standstill for you, when the amount of time given you is expired, you'll get a notice to attend a special magistrate's hearing. Please don't miss that hearing. Please come and tell the special magistrate that you need more time, and they will probably give it to you. OK? Thank you. But look out for that. So, so the word have given us 90 days to finish with us. Otherwise, OK, I understand. Thank you so much. Thank you. If it goes beyond 90 days, you want to finish. I hope it won't. I hope it won't. I honestly tired of it. I want to finish over. I understand, sir, and we do feel for you, but come to that match straight here, please. That's your thing. Uh-huh. Good luck to you. Where are we? We're going to be picking up with item number 28. We had a couple items removed from the queue. Thank you. Item number 28, property owner Patricia Powell, investigator Hosea Rodriguez. Good afternoon. I'm Hosea Rodriguez, co-investigator for the City of St. Petersburg. Testifying a reference to item number 28. Case number 24, DAF 6125, regarding property located at 1619, 18th Avenue South, and I was wanting at this meeting. This property is a commercial structure that is occupied by tenants. This is a citizen complaint. This property was first inspected on April 18th of 24th, and the violation notice center is the owner with the compliance date of June 5th of 24th.. Property was last reinspected on February 18th of 2025 and the following violations still exist. A section of the structures encroached it into the budding property on the north side. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing with the first-class mail posted a city hall since certified mail was posted at a violation address on February 10th of 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County Official Records book 16045, page 0602. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the owner prior to today was on August 12th or 2024. Only did I indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance. There's no relevant fact regarding this case is the complainant actually sending the survey of their property at the north side of the structure. I would like to enter the evidence exhibits number one photographs which are taken on February 18th of 2025 along with the screenshot and document 021825125JRC being photos one through five. So the first photograph, this is actually a screenshot of property appraisers. This is the structure in question right here. And according to property appraisers, these are the boundaries. And again, this is according to property appraisers. Oh, I mechanic shop. And this section right here is the section that is encroaching on the neighboring property. I, rear of the structure, this is the section that's encroaching. This is the elevation of the structure itself, it's the mechanic shop. This is the survey sent in by the complainant. So right here, as you see the outline, the pinkest purpose of the line shows the property line from the structure, excuse me, from the property from the north side of the mechanic shop, and it's shown right here that it's seven, looks like seven feet, seven inches of the structure that is actually on the property, again from the complainant. Oh. NBA Chess trust I need you. I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence exhibit number two and this concludes my presentation. Thank you Mr. Rodriguez. Can you tell me if that rear structure was added on because I noticed on the property appraisers record that the original building was built in 1915. So please ask a question again, please. The structure that's encroaching. Okay. Is that an addition? I'd have to look that up and find out for you. Or just see when it was added is what you're asking. Like was that part of the original, building that I'm not sure of it this time. The building itself according to the property appraiser was built in 1915. Okay. Probably before anybody was paying a whole lot of attention. Right. Yeah. Well we're saying I can pull the property card. Yeah. That would show the original but I'm fairly confident it was an addition that occurred at some point throughout the years. Obviously, it wouldn't have been permitted because it could not have been approved not only to encroach them to set back, but certainly not over another into the private property. Kind of my question was it an existing thing or did somebody do it over the years? I can double check if we want to start getting tested. Thank you. Good afternoon, ma'am. Could I have your name and address for the record please? Hi, yes. My name is Patricia Powell. 222733, she's asking me to put Florida 33712. Okay, thank you. While he's looking at the information I asked him about, what can you tell me about the building and the problem you're having? Well, it was always family being its own, even the lot that they send the building, the existing part, its own the building. It was already there when my kids fathered them and their mother purchased it. They also had the lot that the man brought behind us. It was all thin-stand. The lot went with the building, but it was two separate addresses. They brought it years ago. And it was there when we got there, so. But you saying the lot where the business is and the lot behind it that now is the issue they were owned by the same people at some point. Yes, by the family, the mother, and then somebody sold a lot. Yes, the lot went up and my kids had decided on for it because they keep my father, their father was the owner of the business. We did not know that that lot was going up. We didn't realize that was the address that they was auctioning off or however, say it was whatever. And then that's when it went up and that's when we, you know, know that was still a lot. And we had to take the fence down. I knew that then I would have had a quick deed over to me, but I didn't know it. But the lot and the building went together, but two separate lives, but they both purchased it altogether. You remember what year it was when the lot behind it got either sold or... It only... It only been a few years ago. I can't take it, but I do know the lawyer that struck my kids. I don't know if there is anything on here or not. I got sold and would have been identified then. I don't know. You got it right? Yeah. Maybe a question for the city. So, isn't if a structure is sitting over a boundary for X number of years and that all of a sudden becomes the new boundary. Right. Isn't it seven years or 10 years? Something like that. 2021. So 20. Yeah, I don't know the specifics on What that states I mean I know that there is some laws around, you know, if this is listed here, essentially, after the time you make a claim that that's your property now. That's right. But I wouldn't, I don't know it off the top of my head or I can't tell you can tell gently to it. Do you have any records or can you see when that back lot was And how was it was it a regular sale or was it a tax sale or thank you were a tax sale? Yes, so it was purchased in 2020 See it won't matter in this case of its been was not just curious why they didn't flag it then. Well done just a second. Was it a tax sale, Mr. Wall? Yes. Yes. No titles. No titles. No titles, sir. Oh. Oh. Oh, because of a tax sale. It actually looks like it was a foreclosure potentially. I guess regardless, it wasn't flagged at the time that this issue existed. Yeah, and I mean in a situation like that a lot of times, you know, someone's just bidding on the online auction and probably not doing the due diligence that they should have. I wanted to see it was purchased for, I'm much with it. Yeah, $6,100. So there probably wasn't that amount of research done to determine that it was encroaching. And then the issue came up after the fact, obviously. So. Did you find anything on the property card? So the property card, I'm still trying to, it's an old property card. I'm trying to read through and see, because it's several pages. So. Well, in any event, the addition didn't happen in 2020 or after. No, this is pre-existing. Yeah. It was pre-existing. She might have a case. I, you know, this is split in the baby. I really think that she should probably get an attorney. No. Do you understand we might be talking about it here? I'm not sure we fully understand it either, but... When the property upfront, we ordered it before the... What we're saying is you might be able, and again, we're not giving any legal guidance here at all. We're just saying there's a chance if that structure is sat across that property boundary for, let's say it's however long it takes for you to then say that property boundary now becomes yours because that structure is sat there so long. I think it's 20 years, I don't know that Right. So you might want to re so suggestion. You might want to retain a property attorney to then investigate this for you because that could become the new boundary where your structure sits today even though it encroaches on that other property. If it's set there long enough that it exceeds the time for somebody to make a claim that can become yours. But if not, then you have, you are encroaching on that rod with that piece of the structure. So we have to come up with a motion. I think probably the best course for right. Right. To get some legal advice. No, absolutely. Absolutely. And so there are resources depending upon your income that you may be able to get an attorney that won't cost you an arm and a leg. I would talk to your codes investigator and see if he can give you some pointers. Okay. Okay. I was just going to say that, you know, in this typically we are not going to get into civil matters that would include lot line disputes and things like that. This case is a little unique, you know, because we do have an addition that was done and it bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a the civil issue between the two parties. But in order to satisfy our violation, it would be either that, you know, they obtain that property, they extend the property line out to whatever through a legal process that would give them the setbacks that they would need to then be able to go and permit that portion of the structure, or it gets removed essentially. When was it added on in Utah. There is no, yeah. Other than going in through the counties over, you know, head satellite images that go back, however, many years and seeing if there was any change over time, it's difficult to tell. There is nothing in the permitting records, even on the property card, that would indicate that it was ever done properly. Okay. So yeah, that makes sense. I want to have a question for you. Yeah. So I think we're talking about adverse possession. I don't know that that applies to easements. So what is what we're addressing the easement, not the neighbor,'re addressing the easement violation correct? Yeah, so essentially we are The violation is that that portion of the structure does not meet the setback requirements So it's a zoning violation so you know that would have to normally have a five or a seven foot setback Whatever it may be be for the zoning district. And obviously it encroached much further than that because it actually goes into the other private property. From a city standpoint, unpermanent structure and it's encroaching into our setbacks. And then the end result is, again, the only way to bring it into compliance would be to obtain enough of that other property to provide the setbacks that you would need for that to remain or demolish that portion of the structure to where it's just the original footprint of the building which meets the setback requirements. It would actually be like adverse possession plus 10. Plus 10, plus 10. Yeah, and considering they previously own that lot, I don't know how that all. Yeah, and there was a tax sale, nobody checked the title or nobody. Yeah, yeah. I'm not bringing the lawyers. All right, I'll read something. I don't wanna read this one. I'll take a stab. 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. Peter's Brick City Code is stated by the Cozum Vesca of not been corrected. The board orders Patricia Powell to correct the violations within 120 days or by the date of June 26, 2025. This order is not going to be in the bill. The bill is not going to be in the bill. The bill is not going to be in the bill. The bill is not going to be in the bill. The bill is not going to be in the bill. The bill is not going to be in the bill. The bill is not going to be in the bill. The bill is not going to be in the bill. Everybody opened the number of days in the dollar amount. I do note that it's commercial properties. Yeah, the recommendation was 200, but I'm sure you knew that, right? Yeah. number of days in the dollar amount. We do note that it's commercial properties. Yeah, the recommendation was 200, but I'm sure you knew that, right? Yeah, but there's some odd luck. It's, that was just a cool one. Yeah, I'm fine with it. So let's vote. A sec list? Yes. Ernie? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Anchon? Yes. Wait. Yes. Schneider? Yes. And Sean? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. OK, ma'am, the board's giving you 120 days. If you can't get the matter resolved within that time, you'll get a letter about a special magistrate's hearing. Please come to that meeting and tell the magistrate that you need more time. And I'm sure that you will get it. OK? All right, thank you. In the meantime, step out into the hallway and speak to Mr. Rodriguez and he can give you some tips, okay? Okay. All right. We wish you luck. Thanks. That sells, you know, you win some, we lose some. Yeah, that was a unique one. Yes. Will you be ready for the next one. Next case, please. Item number 40, property owner Mary Ann Lynch, investigator Petrina Miller. Oh, we're not in Carl Gordon. Someone here for Mary Ann Lynch? Violation address 54518th Avenue South. I haven't seen Mr. Dunn in last time. He's no longer representing the property. Moving on. Mary and Lynch going once. Going twice. Item 69, property owner. Cholosile Sanchez, investigative for zone 11. Bear with me one minute just getting our case up here. Didn't mean to throw you a curveball there. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor. All right. And Anthony Riverscoote's investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference to item number 69, case 24-7588, regarding property located at 2560, 13th Avenue South. I was one in at this meeting. This property is a single family structure and is occupied by owners. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on May 29th of 2024. An evaluation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of July 3rd of 2024, an evaluation noticed sent to the owner with a compliance date of July the 3rd of 2024. The property was last reinspected on February the 24th of 2025. The following evaluation still exists. It was cited for a hazardous tree. And so zero out of one violation has been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail and posted at City Hall, since certified mail, and was posted at the violation address on February the 10th of 2025. Ownership is confirmed in County official records book 5602 page 549. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance. As far as additional relevant facts regarding this case, our record check showed an entry on June 27th of 24th at that time a supervisor met with the owner at the MSE building and discuss the report by the city arborist his decision that the tree in the yard needed to be removed. At that time the owner disagreed with the removal assessment by our arborist the city arborist. But I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit number one photographs which were taken on February the 24th of 2025, as well as a report that was entered by the city arborist in September. I'm on the east side of the property in question. And just taking a closer look at this tree. Evidently, just a little background, a little further background. This case, again, was a tenant complaint case where a branch did fall towards the right of way and damaged a neighboring neighbor's car or vehicle at the time. And so I believe that's how this particular case got started with the previous investigator in the area. Now,'d like to go to the report, the Arborist report that was entered and in this verb, you'll notice it says, that the tree in question is a laurel oak in addition to the photos. They were able to easily view the tree from the side street and the rear alley. The condition of the tree is in severe decline. Two major failures have occurred. The failure facing the rear of the property, the alley appears to be older. And the other facing the street, which is the east side, appears to be recent. extension or extensive decay is visible and the tree appears to be advanced in age for the species. And so again that's why it was recommended that the entire tree be removed. And so I'd like to enter into evidence as exhibit number two, these photographs as well as this report and this concludes my presentation. Chair, if I may, just some additional information related to this. So back in, I wanna say it was August or September timeframe. We took a new program to City Council for approval to help specifically in these types of situations to remove hazardous trees. That got approved and we were, I believe, working with the property owner's daughter to try and obtain some of the information that is required because we have to make sure they income qualify because there is a maximum income of 120% of AMI and we were never able to get the documents that we needed to continue on with that process, but if we were able to receive those documents, we could evaluate whether or not they would qualify for the program and potentially remove the hazard history with funds from the city. Okay. But get the tree survived to hurricanes. It's still standing. Yes, and that's what earlier today, that's what the property owner mentioned to me that it has green, you know, green on it. It survived the two hurricanes and he wasn't sure why we still had our case open despite the fact that other trees in the neighborhood had gone down. Except for this one. And, Chair, the only thing I would respond to that is, I mean, we've seen, in my experience anyways, from driving around immediately after the storm, it really was just dependent on the tree canopy, how heavy it was, the wind direction. There were some very healthy trees that came down as well. So I wouldn't rely on that as the indicator. I mean, I believe that Mr. Largent's assessment with the failures and the extensive decay in the trunk of the tree is what made him make that determination. And I will tell you as well, I mean Mr. Largent always looks at these trees from the aspect of can we preserve this through mitigation? Because we want to preserve our tree canopy. So can we do some trimming? Can we do other things that would extend the life of the tree? And oftentimes he provides that within his report when that is an opportunity. So the fact that it was not within this tells me that he felt pretty strongly about the condition of the tree. You got to go with him. No argument. Yeah. I own some lower looks too. But I don't know. Good afternoon. Could you please give us your names and this is my wife. I'd be the gift. She's the daughter of the problem. Can we put this picture back up again? Hold on a second. Could we get... The address of the state, 2560. I already owner is what he said. Excuse me. I be the IVTA. Gives. She's the daughter. Did you get the address? Up the program. No, sir, I need her to answer. We both stated. I need her to speak. I've been a Gifts 2560. 13th Avenue South. St. Pete. If you put this bitch of aga, I spoke to you. If you could stop for a moment, please. I need a speed address. 2560. No, sir, I need her to answer. We both stated. I'm on a hug. I need her to speak. Iveeda gives 2560, 13th Avenue South St. Pete 33712 Thank you, and your name sir. My name is Daniel Gills Okay, and your address 2560 13th Avenue, South Perfect. Thank you very much I'm Mr. Rivers and also this guy, I mean whoever he is speaking, they're not familiar with this at all. When the sense that it first came about and it was spoken to us about it, it wasn't spoken about the removal of the entire tree. It was only about a limb. What happened was a person was put apart illegally on their property and for an act of nature of storm came through and a portion of the tree broke. The troop, the bay in turn thought they were going to get some insurance money to repair the vehicle, but it was told that it was an act of nature. So they got nothing and they were very angry about it. So they pursued it when the guys came out to remove it from the city. I informed them because I am a builder. They did it to an act of nature. You can contact your insurance company. Hopefully they'll do something about it. But the homeowner insurance, our homeowner insurance, will not do anything about it. We've made them very angry. They contacted the city, whoever it was for the city, they informed me that there were some branches that needed to be removed, that were overhanging on to city property. If you look at that picture, which is a more recent picture, and those that were hanging over power lines, I am returned spent over $800 had these removed, not at the city's cost, but at my cost to make sure that they didn't hang as a problem of anything, if anything breaks on that tree, it's going to fall in my yard. It's not going to fall in the city property if you look at the picture. This is why he was going through because he really can't figure it out. We even got a contact with Duke Energy. who wanted to be telling him about the picture. This is why he was going through because he really can't figure it out. We even got to contact with Duke Energy. Duke Energy, we were telling him about the problem that we're having. They said, well, nothing's hanging over the limb to power line. We have not just been through one storm. We have been through three storms. Two of these storms have been hurricanes. This tree is sound. This tree provides shade and cover. This tree is totally green. We have our own arborists, which I heard him speaking of, I don't know, arborists, we have our own. And if you cut any more from the tree, it doesn't balance anymore. To cut the tree down, there's nothing. I mean, nothing wrong with this tree. This tree's the strong. Sir. Did you get a copy? So the city brought up the email that the city arborist put out that recommended the tree come down. Did you get a copy of that? Not only did I get a copy. The copy didn't need to be sent out. I am the one that went down to the city and I spoke to the lady that not him, but the actual supervisor that they, because I wonder if I was truly as the problem here. The problem was a complaint. That was it. I'm sorry to say this. I actually showed them pictures and I showed her the actual tree service that I had to do, she made it so that I would need not to get a person of the actual cut trees. I would have to get someone just like they get a nobler that doesn't do anything. The tree is sound. But the question is, I have, or anyone on this board, what may these trees become such a problem that there's no problem in the entire neighborhood of it in that tree. Hold on. Just bear with me. All I'm trying to say is, you would have gotten a copy of this and you saw that the city's Arborist recommendation was to remove the entire tree You could have then maybe reached out to that person and had a discussion as to why did they have that discussion? I did. I went to the city and I spoke to it with super bad. You didn't talk to the Arborist though. The first, the city made it seem, the Arborist, it wasn't a neighborhood Arborist. It was someone that the city hired. So I went to the city to find out the complaint. It wasn't like, it was a JL services. No, it wasn't. It came as a situation with the city. Now, this piece of paper that you have here, that was never sent to us, okay? Well, we received, this is what we need to do. Overhang your branches and dot, dot, dot, dot. And I got right on it because I work out of town. I work in Georgia. I live in Georgia. So I had to come home right then to take care of this problem. I can't. I won't be able to come back before months. That's why I'm pretty perturbed. I'm here now just for this tonight. I got to go back. All right. What I'm saying to you is, it has never been a problem with the city about the street. No one drove down the street. No, no one from the city looked at his street and thought this tree was a problem. This was someone that was angry. Sir, we do understand you feel that the neighbor complaining caused all the problems. But now we're at a point where they've said that that tree is diseased and has to come down. So you can either take it down yourself or you can apply for a program to have them take it down, but there are income limits. Man, and that's what I'm saying again. The first thing we heard was not as you're saying it. No one never said, take the entire tree down. That first thing that we used to be. The third, from the city was to take pieces of the tree away. Excuse me, sir. This developed over a period of time. This wasn't a, and this wasn't a first issue of setting up, reading yourself of the tree. Sir, I need you to stop talking. Stop talking now. You have two choices. You can leave the tree up, and you'll start accluing fines, and leans against the house, or you can take it down. Those are your two choices. Those are my two choices. And I live and work out of time. Okay, since you... This is the issue that is only... If I live in work out of town, can I please have a substantial amount of time to get back here to remove this tree and add what also number one second issue is? How far does this tree has to come down that it doesn't become an issue? Because there's no statement of it, it have to be a stump that it has to be so high do we have six eight ten twelve feet of this tree I don't know but what I'm saying to you is I won't be able to come back here for another maybe four months I got a 96 year0 mother-in-law. I got a wife as an capable woman. I think what our chair said is you know you do have two options. I think one of the options that it sounds like was being worked on was to get the information to this city of ply for the program that then they can provide assistance get the tree down. So I would go down that route. But the second piece is you can do it yourself or your higher license arborist and they will take it down and they know the required height. So those are your two options. This has been already from an issue that you have to say. It's been responding that there's too much money made into the home. But we don't qualify for that. Okay. So in that church. One thing is that we all right you're saying that I don't say a lady that we got to remove the tree. All right that's that's I'm not fighting with you about that issue. The issue is time. I'm gonna fly it out of here. Okay. Okay. Can I please have at least four months and I'll come back here Tree will be gone Okay, maybe not Stomp marked all the way down into the ground But the tree will not be a nation again, and we won't have to deal with this anymore Please yes, all of that So just wanted to I mean maybe I'm a point now because it seems like we've gotten through the The condition of the tree issue, but when the property owner or representative came into the municipal services center Our our bris mr. Largent went out and did another evaluation of the tree just to review and see what options may be avail second time Second? Second time, right. And came to the same conclusion as previously. So, to my knowledge, we did not receive the documents that we needed in order to verify that they would not meet those income qualifications. So, by all means, yeah, if it's their decision, they don't want to move forward with that process. We're obviously we're not going to force anybody into that, but if they did provide us those documents, we could at least review them to see, because if they were eligible, this is something that the program was made to address. And the program is for the homeowner, the person who's reciting in the house. Correct, yeah, it's based on the household income. So the owner, anybody else who is, yeah. But I mean, it's, they may have made the decision themselves that they don't meet. Yeah, that's, but, you know, I just wanted to be clear that, you know, that is an option that is there for them to pursue, because we did not get everything that we needed earlier in the process. to get it's it's free program. So, tree gets removed, city pays for it, and that's the end of it for the process. Is it appropriate to ask the city a question that, so the gentleman's asking for four months, is the tree in a condition that the city would not object to giving them four months? I mean, our code is very clear that the tree is an imminent hazard. So it could come down tomorrow and in an afternoon thunderstorm. I mean, it's a clear delineation that it's something that needs to be addressed. I'm not going to sit up here and say that I would be comfortable with you all providing four months for that tree to come down, especially since there's already been limb failures that have occurred and cause damage to vehicle within the public right of way. So you know, that determination is made understanding that it's a serious issue that needs to be addressed and not something that has more time before it gets to that condition. Well, I think everybody knows Laurel Oaks, 60 to 70 years live, live Oaks 200 plus. So, you can do the math. All right, so can we read something, please? Go ahead, Joe. Thanks, man. 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 codes investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Shirochi Sanchez. Closio. Closio, Sorry. Sanchez, to correct the violations within 45 days or by April 12, 2025, if this order is not complied with a fine of $100 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Do we want to discuss time or dollar amounts? I would that's why I asked the city the question. I would love to give four months but the city said they couldn't support that. So I tried to find a number that still give them some time but address the city's concern that it is a hazard an existing hazard Yeah, I mean if they've already decided they're not gonna apply for the city's Program and they're gonna have to do it themselves. I mean they can go ahead and start that I spoke I spoke man someone from the city. I'm sorry not Not yet. We can't have you speak right now. I'm sorry. We'll come back to you in a minute. We'll come back to you. All right. I'm just saying, if they've already made that decision, then they can start pursuing that. I know the gentleman said he's not in town, but he can still work it remotely, I guess. Try and find someone that's going eventually take the tree down. I mean, I don't know where else to go with it. Yeah. Alrighty, let's vote and know where else to go with it. Yeah. Alrighty, let's vote and see where we are. A sec list? Yes. Burning? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Ancha? Yes. Wait. No. Wilson. No. OK. So the board has decided to give you 45 days. If you should need more time than that, you will get a notice. If the tree is not down in 45 days, you'll get a notice to come back to a special magistrate's hearing. Explain the circumstances to the magistrate, and they will probably give you more time. OK? I'm sorry to have cut you off but when the board is in a closed discussion we can't hear from you again. Did you want to say something else to the board now? I truly don't believe you to do these men's I have very one look at that tree and I truly believe that one of you guys can actually Can you see that tree from that picture? I truly can. A tree's dead. I can't see the damage. I don't know how to say damage to this tree. Yeah, the person that whoever this tree is, they went out there twice. I'm not there twice to it. May I see the person that actually see them? May they speak? Because I live in that home. They went out there twice to it. May I see the person that actually seen it? May they speak? Because I live in that home. Don't I understand? I went out and I looked at that tree. And I don't see anybody in here that's got a cloak from up to that tree, but us too. I'm sir, I'm really sorry. And I know you're a terrorist. Giving you a piece of paper and he's giving you a picture. and the picture that you're even looking at until today. That... giving you a piece of paper and he's giving you a picture and the picture that you're even looking at until until until today that picture is not clear enough or anyone in this room that actually see the health of that. I'm sorry. So it's really like what's the use that we walked in here? We should good luck. Chair just for clarity though I would just like to explain, you know, we don't take these matters lightly when we get a complaint of hazardous trees. That's why we lean on our city certified arborist to make that determination. He is the subject matter expert to make the determination that that tree is hazardous. He is the one that provided that assessment to us in order to move forward in this matter. And to visiting the truth. It's not right. It came out of the complaint. It wasn't that. So I just wanted to make sure you understood that it was. I'm not. Sir. Okay. Sir, I'm not. What have you said? I understand. And anybody from the city roll down and found the. Right. Hearing concluded. We need to move on to the next I do want to clarify that I did speak to someone from the city extensively about the program that you're mentioning and I was told that in the house Oh, we had too much money. That's why we didn't go any further with it. Okay. Thank you. Next case, please. Item number 61, property owner Joshua Nehuff and Samantha Bowers, investigator Jean Mediu. Yeah, I mean, the Arborist knows what he's talking about. He went out there twice. And then... We have to click the central projector for some reason and some reason and some other. That's fine. No harm. The harbors went there twice. All right. We did put a print on the newspaper. Have a one-minute talk. I was trying. No, I know you were really scared. Good afternoon. I am Jean Madoucote's investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying a reference to item number 61, case number 24 dash 374, regarding property located at 902, 22nd Avenue North. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a single family, struck Jan is occupied by owner. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on January 2nd, 2020, sorry, 2024. And a violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of June 26th, 2024. And then an addendum notice was also sent because they requested an extension and that new compliance date was July 21, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on February 13, 2025 and the following violations still exist. Fence installed on side and rear of property adjacent to the alley is over the allowable height. As of February 14, 2025, some of the boards have been removed, so it is closer to six feet. However, there's an old wooden fence panels that remain in place and is in disrepair. Two over-hide fence installed adjacent to Ali intersection, prohibit sanitation service vehicles from safety traversing the areas with obstructions. As of February 14th, 2025, the fence is located on the public right of way. Visibility remains in violation. Three, FENSE installed on the right of way in Ali. Ali is 14 feet in width, and is encroaching public right of way. Zero out of three violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall and sent 35 mail and also posted at the violation address on 7th of February 2025 which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 2795, page 0341. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the owner prior to today was on July 22nd, 2024. The owner did not indicate when the violation would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance. I would like to enter every then as exhibit one photographs which were taken on February 13th, document 02132025374J1M, 4 to numbers 1 to 6. on February 13th, document 02132025374J1M, photo numbers 1 to 6. This is a front in the alleyway. This is the fence with the alleyway that is slanted there that is the visibility issue. This is the old fence, the new fence where it is installed and the old fence. And I will have one picture again showing that the new fence was not installed the same in line with the old fence. It's more out onto the alley. I would also like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two and this concludes my presentation. So, anyone have questions for this? I do. and if I missed it in your description, I apologize. But so the new fence, these are questions. It's too tall. And it's on the public right of way, part of it. And the piece of the old fence that's still existing is in disrepair. Are those the violations? Yes, with one correction though. Initially when the fence was installed, it was way above the six feet. They have removed a few of the boards at the top, so it's closer to the six feet. Now I think it's just like a few inches above. But other than that, it still is the issue is the visibility because when the sanitation truck drivers to go in in they they cannot get through to go to do their job So they need to move it to feedback to where the original fence line was basically I would guess so yes close Okay, sorry, but I mean the city's okay with the height now. It's just but obviously the location is still a problem. Is that what I'm hearing? Okay, Yeah, and the only place at the height would be, a concern would be at the visibility triangle if they don't push it back far enough to clear it out. Okay, so if they, depending on how they fix the position, right, if it was moved, a high issue might go away or might not, got. Okay Thank you good afternoon, could I please get your names and addresses for the record please absolutely good afternoon Joshua Nihau and it's 902 22nd Avenue North St. Petersburg 3 3 7 0 4 Hello Samantha Bowers 902 22nd Avenue North St. Petersburg Florida, 33704. Okay, so tell us about your spiffy fence. I hope you like it. It's a pretty fence. I love the fence myself personally. If I could, I have actually printed out pictures of all every wall the repairs were being made, tape measures showing that it's all in line, including a survey stating that it's not in the alleyway. And we also have it on flash drive, if you'd like. Yeah, so however you'd like it, but I do have copies for everyone. We have eight. You have a page by page. And in the timeline order, so it's a chronological order. Yeah, chronological order, I should say. No, you want to put it on the screen of your preference. Yeah, if you prefer, we can put it on the screen as well. Okay. So here's the problem. The garbage truck can't get through. Well... You want to put it on the screen of your preference? Yeah, if you prefer, we can put it on the screen as well. OK. So here's the problem. Arbitious truck can't get through. Well, so that's the first thing we'll contest. That's not an arphant. It's not only is it not because of arphants, but it's actually inaccurate because it can change all the time. The picture pictures of it empty this morning, because everybody's getting by fine. And you know, the site visibility triangle, you know, if I could, I'll just back up so I can show because I did learn some of this from zoning. So I knew that there were mistakes made. I quickly owned those. So this survey that you see here was as when the violation was made. If you can see to her point, the one fence on the bottom of the sheet to the left where the old fence is a little bit farther back than the one the part to the right which is the new fence. It shows that even the new fence is actually about a foot inside of my property line. So that so that this was as she showed the fence before the pictures that are littering. All of the circled red areas were the violations that we agreed with. We were like, yep, totally absolutely violations were zoning. So I took this personally to zoning and spoke with Andrew and zoning with the violation letter along with this survey and said, could you please tell me where my issues lie and how I can fix them? And then they gave us pages two and three. Yep, that is why I have two and three in here because I was told, no, you do not need a permit as long as you follow these rules on this double-sided sheet of paper, you're good. So we actually circled and read on those pages, the course of the page. The raven areas. Yeah, the corresponding red circles from the survey. So with that being said, me and Andrea had gone over in the zoning department and that leads me to actually page four which is going to be the interview of me notifying her that I had a conversation with Andrea in zoning and basically me and Andrea came to the following conclusions that I need to fix the site triangle. I need to get the height down and we establish those areas. I email her asking like, hey, does this all sound good to you? Just trying to open a line of communication. Trying to open a line of communication. And as you will see her response at the top was essentially, she doesn't want a line of communication. She would prefer we just do this here. When I was trying to avoid this, and I was like, I got with Zoning, I'd like to get with you. Let's figure this out. And her response is very simple. she's proceeding with her case to hear. So I wanted to get the signer down before here. So with all that being said. As much as we loved being here. With all that being said, we still decided we were going to take proactive steps. On the following page, you will see some data. that being said. As much as we loved being here. With all that being said, we still decided we were gonna take proactive steps. On the following page, you will see some data. And on the following pages, you'll see the portion of the survey that it applies to. For the next three pages. Yes, in the very top left, without the very portion of the survey that we're showing pictures of, is actually still on that same page. So as you can see, referencing the original survey, our rear line was 0.9 feet in. So that's where we get that 10 inch measurement coming off of there from the very top left. Show because we wanted to establish, after talking about the rear, we needed to use this survey as a guide to where we could be. So I took that survey and we took 10 inches back to mark where our property line actually was so that I could get the site visibility triangle back there for sanitation as she mentioned. The site visibility triangle as there's those vent sheets show should be five feet each way. So we calculated that as well as a bunch of pictures with measuring tapes so that you can kind of see that we were taking the proper measurements. Then you can see on the top right on 919. 918 I believe they're actually removed the evening of 918. And then on 919 the installation of the new back part of the fence, making sure that our site visibility triangle was as it is shown in there, which is five feet back, which again that's why you have these five feet measurements and everything. And we had marked with X's where the original post where when she had given us the violation and we realized yes we were about we needed about I want to say it was a foot or so on each side to be able to give the proper sight triangle so then we bring it back which we circled in the green circles showing the new placement further more at the bottom yeah at the very bottom you can actually see the 918 version, which is a very short corner, and then the 9, the 226 version, which is a significantly wider one, because now that turn has been given to sanitation with that five-foot site visibility triangle. So that is that page in regards to height. She is correct. They originally were over height over height it wasn't Stalled over height and again we have no disputes on what her original Yeah, there's no disputes there exactly so we so those boards were removed like right away the ones that we could Remove to get it down to look to about where is that we knew we still needed new more to do more work the hurricane came That is where the disrepaired fence, the back old panels, which is how we purchased the property, those fell in. Because those were standing. And then when we started repairing the remaining of the fence, there was nothing to support it on them, so they just fell during the hurricane. Exactly. And on page, I will also track at this point. But on the first page, I'm actually holding a measuring tape vertical. I went, we went around over the last 48 hours and measured and took pictures, you know, zoomed in, zoomed out, so nobody could think I was holding tape measure up in the air. And took and showed that every measurement that I took other than one was 72 or below. There was one panel that is at 73. It's an inch over. Now with that being said, there are slight elevation changes all over. And that is why that very bottom left picture will actually show you the runoff running towards the alley. It gives some. So I'm an inch maybe over one of the panels, but it is only two in a bottle. And some places where two inches short. Sure. So it's not like we're over you know what I mean? Like if I'm I've done my best to comply to the best of my shaving individual But everything else which was pain when there is more runoff anyway, which exactly which at this point now everything should be at 72 Or below the site visibility ability in the triangle in the rear has been complied with Yeah, there was there was originally violation, which was cured, which I just said none of mine were. But originally, she had cited us for the very front. We had six feet too close, where it needs a five foot set back on a major road with it landscaped. So we also included pictures to show that that was another one that was remade immediately. As soon as we found out about it, we made that repair within days. because it was on the roadway. Yeah, it was. It was very real. Once we found out we were wrong, we wanted to go forward and fix these things. So that is a picture from actually from... As soon as we found out about it, we made that repair within days. Because it was on the roadway. Yeah, it was. It was very strong. Once we found out we were wrong, we wanted to go forward and fix these things. So that is a picture from actually from today. You'll see, we're on the same outfit with the measuring tape showing that we are now five feet back beyond the sidewalk and that with a landscape box in front of it. The last thing, but probably the most importantly in my vote. Definitely the most important. That I want to address is the 14 foot alley. The first thing I want to say is she's wrapped this up multiple times, but in no violation she's ever sent- the most importantly in my vote. Definitely the most important. That I want to address is the 14-foot alley. The first thing I want to say is she's wrapped in some multiple times, but in no violation she's ever sent us, can she send us a statute? If you look at the violations, there's a statute on every other violation, but for some reason she cannot name the statute that requires me to give up some of my yard without eminent domain, without a hearing, just because the city may not have made their alley wide enough at some point. With that being said, the surveyer, I also had, do the alley and it says 14 feet alleyway. So I'm just assuming here that she didn't have a wheel or do the boundary survey but I did have that done to prove that it is 14 feet. But to go with step farther, we aren't actually the ones in peening as close to the alley. If you look at the photos, the guide wires are actually farther out of the alley. So far, if that's... This is prohibiting it. How would the guide wires and the telephone poles that are closer in the alley, how would those not be restricted to that? Unless recycling trucks can go through that. Yeah, unless they're driving through those. So we're not actually the one constructing the alley the most, and there's more proof of that. that there's actually a telephone pole, the one at the very bottom circle on the left, that was way out in the alley. And if you counted those two things that pole that side and then the guide wires on the other side, which are things we did not put in that's put in by the city, that is the two closest limitations. Everything we've done are past those two limitations. The last thing I really want to add here is, you know, she's brought up 14 feet, which again, I don't have the statute to, maybe she has over there that she can send to me. But upon all the legal research, conferring with a law friend of mine, there's only one thing that we can find about 14 feet in all of the code involving asks. I'm going out. And actually has to do with vertical clearance, the one thing she didn't notice around there is that our alleymates over here, we got about 20,000,000. It's not 14,000. So there actually is a code violation that should be marked. has to do with vertical clearance, which is the one thing she didn't notice around there is that our alleymates over here, we got about 20 to 20. It's not 14. So there actually is a code violation that should be marked at 5, 14 feet, but vertically, not horizontally. The last thing I will say is, if we're worried about alley width, my car is which is small, barely fits the Jason alley, which I measured at 10 feet wide, but there was no problem there. So I'm a little taken aback on how she got that my alley wasn't 14 feet if she had a survey that I haven't seen but to everything that Why but there was no problem there. So I'm a little taken aback on how she got that my alley wasn't 14 feet if she had a survey that I haven't seen but to everything that we have done every bit of research, every bit of getting me zoning, trying to get with her, we can't find where the problem is at anymore. And we did our best to make this crystal clear. Because we have to consult with the city, okay? Absolutely. Of course. Mr. Waw, help me here. Yes, so this is the first time that I've seen the survey. So, just- You must have taken one because- Start there. I did provide this with a road June 27th, by the way. And just to be clear, the 14 feet is what your- the alley is planted at behind your property. Some of them are 10, some of them are 16 feet, yours happens to be 14 feet. So that's not going to be in an ordinance anywhere or code anywhere. That's just the size of the platted alley when the neighborhood was laid out. So my suggestion to the board would be if you want to provide some time just so we can go out and verify. Again, I personally haven't been out there with a measuring tool to figure out. The survey appears to show that they're within the boundaries, but we can just confirm and then close it out on our end. It does look like obviously there are alterations that were made to it. The height variance is an inch or two. The code provides a six inch kind of discretion to adjust for grade and things like that. It's not like we have a eight foot fence all the way around. And then they can see the front setback was taken care of with the five feet coming back for the front. So at this point, it would just be a matter of giving us an opportunity to, in more detail, kind of review the information that's before us now. And then verify that the visibility is there, the width is there, and then obviously if there's other issues that need to be addressed along the alley to deal with any other issues that are causing problems for traversing it, we can address that as well. Okay. I'll reach on them. Sounds good. Well, I mean, the board can also determine based on the evidence that was provided that a violation doesn't exist. That's completely within your purview as well. So, personally, we prefer that somebody from code's verified. I think it's reasonable that you guys go out there. And I mean, they provided really good evidence. So go out there, confirm it. And if it's all good, then it's good. And you did a wonderful job. I wanted to make this easy for everybody as possible. I knew it was going to be hard to follow with alleys and roads. You went above and beyond. Canva Premium is very helpful. Go ahead. 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 are stated by the Code's investigate have not been corrected. the board orders Joshua Nail, Nail. To correct the violate, Joshua Nailoff and Samantha Bowers, to correct the violations within 25 days, or by the date of March 23rd, 2025, if this order's not complied with, a fine of $100 per day will be imposed. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Is that is 25 I mean you guys, the ball's kind of in your court is that okay? Yeah, we have 25 days to comply with the plan. What do I do? 25 I figured if you get out there in the next week, they've got to make some changes. Is that yeah, you know, go out there just to, to be honest again, most of it is just reviewing, reviewing the documents and seeing the survey and actually going out there and getting some eyes on it because I just haven't done it myself. I just want to make sure I don't, yeah, you're extremely busy, you're, you're, yeah, your organization. Okay. Okay. Good question. So we have a motion in a second. Is everybody okay with the number of days in the amazement? If they are, yeah. All right, Let's vote. A checklist. Yes. Running. Yes. NIDER. Yes. Anchha. Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Okay. So we've given the codes department 25 days to come and verify your fence. Thank you. Once they do that, then no closing, OK? Perfect. Thank you. They don't find any issues. They'll close. OK. But if they do somehow, and there's 25 days, then I'll get a notice that something's going to happen. You should be there when they're there. Yeah. Oh, absolutely. She has my email. So I would be there 100%. You'll know if there's other problems. Yes. Awesome. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. I mean, based on the circumstances, if we found any, you know, additional issues that you're giving us the 25 days or giving 25 days, understanding that based on everything that you saw that is likely in compliance at this point in time, right? So if for some reason we find something that is out of compliance, understanding the thought process beyond your decision, we can make an administrative decision to defer a hearing or two in the special magic day process in order to give sometimes. I believe you all probably would have likely done that. Yes. Anyways, just in, things the right thing to do. Yeah. Thank you. I don't anticipate it being a problem, but that just wanted to reassure the board in that. Yep. Would that be any issue you find or new issues? A continuing issue with the fence, I would. Right, yeah, something that would need to be addressed maybe because there's an air in the survey or it's not pushed back to the visibility far enough. Again, I believe you all would have provided additional time on if you thought additional work needed to be done. And so I'm just saying from an administrative standpoint, that is a decision we can make if we find that there's other problems there. That way they're not under a short timeline just because. To go fit because of 25 seats. Yes, that sounds great. All righty. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Next case, please. Item number 48, property owner, Ingrid, and change A's, investigator Ryan Henderson. 48. Okay. Huh? Yeah. Yeah. The afternoon. Ryan Henderson, co-investigator for the city of St. Petersburg. Testifying the reference to item. identifying the item number 48, case number 24-18820 regarding property located 41-30, third avenue south. I was sworn in at this property. The property is a single family structure and is occupied by a tenant. This is a tenant complaint case. The property was first inspected on the 31st of October of 2024 and a violation noted sent to the owner with the compliance date of 1123, 2024. The property was last reinspected on the 26th of February of 2025. The following violations still exist and I'm just going to read these violations so they're a little clear so you get the full scope of them. The first one has is an illegal unit of violation and our narrative for that is that the single family structure is owned in T2. It's been altered into a duplex with separate four kitchens for tenants on each level upstairs and downstairs and we also added a note please note that zoning and permitting approval are required to convert a single family residents into a multifamily property. That's the first violation. We had a violation that was for electrical safe disrepair or disrepair and unsafe and essentially that was for a ceiling fan. There was some apparently some water intrusion that was causing the ceiling fan to spark. And so that was the second violation. That's still opened. A third violation is for ceiling disrepair, which we'll show you. Still in disrepair is a little simpler. There was a permit issue. And our narrative for that is that the permits are required for the renovations and creating the two family units from an approved single-family structure. There's also a window that was converted into a door without a permit as well as a pergola that's attached to the side of the structure that needs to be permitted if they desire to retain it on the property. There's also Facia Soffit Disrepair and some issues with the interior wall, which we'll show you in the photographs. So those are the existing violations. Four out of ten violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of here was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, sent certified mail and was posted at the violation address on the 14th of February of 2025 Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 21891 page 1799 My last contact to the owner prior to today was on December 2nd of 2024 the department recommends 25 days and 150 dollars per day thereafter for non-compliance. The relevant fact in this case is that there is an Aries permit number application number 25-01-00369 which is in process and the application is for the door replacement removed. It's to remove unpremitted door install new door for a Florida product approval, soft face-to-repair, laundry room restoration. It's to convert unauthorized second floor kitchen back to original laundry room by removing appliances and cap in the stove line and also the pergola to compliance, modify existing unpermitted pergola to meet current code requirements. And so that's in process. It's not issued. It's just an application at this point as of the 31st of January. So now I would like to enter into evidence as a Zippet Number 1 photographs, which were taken on the 31st of October, as well as the 26th of this month. All right. We'll start with this, and this is the elevation. I'm not there to hear. We'll go there. This is our elevation photograph. That's the property, the main, the one that sits back here. Our second photograph. So this is inside the door so you can kind of get a little bit of a reflection of people on the outside. That's the, here is the door. I'll show you the door. Well, you saw the door in the photograph. This is just inside, once you enter into the structure from the north side. There's a second door here, and this was essentially a unit downstairs, and the stairs here lead to the unit upstairs. This door wasn't locked, and so the tenant at the time was using these little pink curtains for privacy. This is where the downstairs unit was, and that's the upstairs unit, and the upstairs tenant had access to the downstairs unit, but it's just kind of a, so that's the situation there. I have more photographs. Again, that's the, we'll curtain that, the citizen put up to privacy purposes. Here's the pergola that was installed on the structure, against the structure that they're hopefully going to get a permit for. And just inside this door is a laundry room that was being shared by both tenants. Again, there's one mailbox for two units. And the new laundry room was downstairs there. So I was a lady's picture. Now here's, this was the fan, the ceiling fan at the time. That was causing some problems. That was in disrepair. I'll just show a few of these ceiling disrepairs just for the sake of this out of here at a reasonable time. So there is, this is some of the areas where the ceiling is in disrepair. I'll just show you the pictures. Or the repairs that were made were not properly made. This is the same area. The same thing. sealing steel peeling. Here's the window on the structure that was converted into a door. This is just some of the facial softener. You can see the roof underlayment here has rotted wood as well as some of the paint that's peeling and chipping. Similar to this photograph there's some look conditions paint to lean chipping. then finally there is a photograph of the interior wall. This is the wall that is at some issues. It's bubbly I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two. This concludes my presentation. All righty. Can you tell me what the status of that in process permit is? Is it awaiting corrections or where are we? It does not even look like it's been routed yet. It's just plan review, like, e-plan submission. OK. So can you tell when it was applied for? Just excuse me, January 30th of 2025. OK. Thank you. And does, you rattle off quite a few things that were issues. Does the permit address them all, or can you tell? So the permit doesn't address all of them, all of them may not necessarily need to be. Need a permit? Yeah. Not all of them. Like for instance, the ceiling fan, that doesn't necessarily need a permit to replace that. Are there still tenants there? There is one tenant, the tenant who initially initiated the complaint is gone. However, there is a tenant that remains upstairs. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Henderson. All right. Could we get your name and address for the record please? Ingrid and she has 5730 Massachusetts of a new Newport Ritchie Florida. Okay. So tell us about your permit. Tell us about the program. I retain Mr. and get my glasses here. Let me see. Matthew Kenneth Kordes, he applied for the permit and he actually went to I think a few times have meetings regarding the permit, the door, the purgula, and the upstairs converting it back to a laundry area. And he gave me the, it's still pending. Right. The ceiling fan is already replaced. The drywall, it's already smoothed out. The tenant kicked it, the side drywall, she kicked that one in, so that one, it's patch out, I just need to paint that. So what you're doing then is just some small things, till you're waiting on the permits. Yes, me and three. Yes, me. Through. The fence was bent from the hurricane. Hurricane Milton was bent all the way down to the ground. Right. And that was fixed already. That's in the picture that's done. So what are your plans for this property, ma'am? Are you going to leave it as a single family rental now? Yeah. My mom was thinking about moving with me. She's with me now, but she wants her own, maybe, her own residence, you know. So, you know, she likes to have her own little place because she, me and her doesn't get along. So she's thinking that because she's living with me now, she would rather have her own place. So we're just waiting on the permit. There was permit. It said pending, he gave me the right over here. You basically just applied for it. Yeah, yeah. Because when it was the hurricane season, after it was so difficult to even find one to even just entertain small things. It's just, you know, they wouldn't even come up or doesn't show up or something. So Mr. Cortes actually helped me out saying that he will do. And I think he a few times he came over here. And the first time he went, they said that it was not, there was a few times he came over here and the first time he went they said that it was not there was a few times that he came down and it was not accepting his permit online so he have somebody has to help him get how to do it or something like that he has. Okay. Yeah So that's what I'm, you know, the only thing that I'm waiting on is the one that needed to have a permit. Yes. So what we're going to, what we can do here is give you time to get that permit issued. Once the permit is issued, the stuff goes on hold. OK. OK. That nobody's going to bother you about time once the permit is issued. But it's critical that you stay on top of the permit application because they may come back to you for corrections. There may be more information that they need. So you and your contractor need to stay on top of that permit and get it issued as soon as you can. Yes, ma'am. He wrote me a letter act to just to let you know that he's you know, as soon as the permit is you know like approved, they will start working on that. That's great. Yes. Yes. So what we're going to do is decide how much time to give you that happened. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for anybody? No, I'm good. Would somebody read? 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 Coase Investigator have not been corrected. The board orders and you're going to have to help me with your name. Ingrid. And she has. And she has. Is it correct the violations within 60 days or by the date of April 27th 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day, she'll be imposed. You think that they will wait on the permit? So I mean, I can't. Second. Okay, so we have a motion and a second for 60 days and $150 per day. Is everybody okay with that? Let's vote. A checklist? Yes. Burning? Yes. Nighter? Yes. Hanchha? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Wait, step out during the beginning. I forgot. Okay. So the board is voted to give you 60 days, ma'am, and that's to get the permit issued. Okay. So is that based on the city giving us the permit and it starts from there? I don't know. You don't have to get the work done in 60 days. You just have to get the permit issued in 60 days. Okay. Okay. Because it's going to be based on the city because that's what we're rating on. Right, but they may come back to you wanting more information. Okay. It's the ball in your court, so you have to answer them. Okay. Okay. Okay. 97. If you should go over the 60 days, you'll get a letter notifying you of a special magistrates here in 98 come to that here and guess and tell the special magistrate that you need more time and they will probably give it to you okay yeah but don't miss the meeting please don't miss no okay yeah we're just waiting on the permit he said he's ready for writing we wish you good luck thank you Item number 97, property owner Onyx, Suit on ex suites LLC investigator Joseph Brinori So I see we have two cases here. Yes This is an inner and an outer or what is this going on interior exterior? Is that how it's broken up? And it complained then an exterior case. Okay I Joseph Bernori codes investigator for the city St. Petersburg testifying in reference to item number 97 Case 2 4 1 9 3 9 5 Regarding the property located at 137 northeast Lincoln Circle North was sworn at this meeting This property is a multi-family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a tenant complaint case. Property was first inspected on November 8th, 2024. And a violation noticed sent to the owner with a compliant state of December 3rd, 2024. Property was last reinspected on February 11th, 2025 and the following violation still exists. The front exterior doors and disrepair broken, rotted and now screwed shot at the time. 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, delivered by certified mail was posted at the violation address on February 11th, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, book 22029, page 1703. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with property owner prior to today was February 18th, 2025, and the owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts regarding this case are the owner did procure a property management company to assist in these repairs, but after hiring the company, the company determined that the work was outside of their scope. I would like to enter into evidence as Exhibit One photographs which were taken on February 11th, 2025, document 021125395, JCB, and photo number one. So I think during the Hurricane Helene, this unit had water intrusion and it pushed the doors open and they were already a little old and it was screwed shut to keep it shut. It's how it was named, will you use it? Like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number one, This concludes my presentation. Is the door operable? How are they getting in and out? It doesn't properly function. Okay. How is the tenant getting in and out? She uses the rear door. Okay. Does anyone else have questions, Prista? Good afternoon, ma'am. Could you give us your name and address please? Nancy Zofali, 113th Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida, 3301. Okay, and you're connected to Onyx Suites, a little... Owner. You're the owner, okay? Can you show me a lesson? Susan Zebra, Ozanaska, U.S. and uniform and Fizenfakstrat, Aizen Alphaa, Elisyn Lima, Y.A. Zanyanki. Alrighty, what can you tell us about the store? Well, they are all from the storm, hurricane Haleen, the then Milton hit, and the insurance adjusted, didn't get out there till mid-November. The The doors were according to the tenant were broken in, door in one of the hurricanes, and she needed them secure, because she said they were flapping in the wind. So I sent someone out to secure them, made access through the back door. Since then, she is using the front door as her egress and ingress every single day because people have been going there to inspect the place. Since then, the inspector is correct. I did hire a property management company who then said this was beyond the scope of work. So then I hired a public adjuster because I have to procure at least three estimates per issue to submit to the insurance company. I do need the insurance because it was during the hurricane. There is enough damage that needs to be paid by the insurance because I will not be able to afford all the fixes. I have gone on and repaired the fence. There is an issue with the fence that has been repaired. The back door had some issues. That back. Let me stop you there. Oh, sorry. There are two cases. All we're dealing with right now is the door. Front door. OK. It's just the front door. Right. OK. So I have contacted seven companies of which two gave me estimates. And I need to get a third one. Those have been submitted to the public adjuster who was set to go out there and do his own inspection yesterday, but was refused entry by the tenant. So he is rescheduling again for some time this week. And that's where I am with the front doors. I can pick out of those two, however, they need to get those two estimates, do you need to go up to the insurance company in order for them to look at the value of what they gave me during their inspection or their claim? Okay. So she is going to need a permanent, replace those doors, isn't she? Correct. Yeah. And they are custom doors in which the, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. They are custom doors and I'm being estimated a 6 to 12 production week. So it's either 6 to 12 weeks to make those custom doors. It's not like they can go to home depot and purchase two doors and put them in tomorrow. Did you hear that? And this is going to need a permit for that work? Yes, I did. I knew that. So once I pick the company, once the insurance company says, okay, this is how much I'm going to pay you to repay those doors, I will pick the company that will do it then from there they will procure the permit and I've already vetted those companies they are licensed to do the work. Yeah and regarding the lead time on the doors the permit is really what once you get the permit the work can follow this will go on hold. I'm sorry. Once you get the permit and it's approved. Right. You don't have to complete the work and the time we're going to give you today. You need to get the permit in that amount of time. Okay. The only issue I have with that is I don't want it to get the permit. I have to sign with the door company, but I don't want to sign with the door company until I talk, till the public adjust, it has submitted my claim for the door. at least that portion. They can do it in segments. So he, because there's other things, they do see in the... the public adjusta has submitted my claim for the door, at least that portion. They can do it in segments, so he, because there's other things they do see in the claim that they need to go to the insurance company with. But from what I've been told from the public adjuster, he can start from the doors and say, okay, here's what we need for the doors. This is what I find is rightfully owed for the doors. And then I can make the decision what company will do the work and then they will procure the permit. Now, the only other issue with this is, well, actually that kills it. If I get the permit that puts it on hold because I was going to say this part two of the next violation kind of ties into this one. So, how long do you think from where the public adjuster gives you the answer you need to then go to the door company? How long do you think that is? Because he hasn't even had his inspection. He did have his inspection of part of the house, but was not allowed entry into the bottom part of the house. It's when he gets his inspection done, then he's going to come back to me and tell me, with the information you gave me, this is how long it's going to take. But I haven't really gotten that from him yet because he's just starting out on that. And I don't know how long it'll take the insurance company to go back and forth with him. I don't know that process. Right. At least the doors work. Since this is a rental, is there a safety hazard with the fire marshal only having a partial egress and an egress and an erental for a tenant that's upstairs or downstairs? She's downstairs on the first floor. Just curious. Yeah, usually if there's a secondary means of egress, they don't have concerns where the you need to be vacated. Typically that's when you know the the sole set of stairs or something like that are in disrepair. So I don't know the specifics at this property, but I would imagine as long as there's a secondary means of egress, it shouldn't be an issue. I need a print label for this book. Alright, somebody want to read something? Or are there more questions? No. All right, I'll take a shot. 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 codes investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Onyx Suites LLC to correct the violation within 60 days or by April 27, 2025. This order is not complied with the fine of $150 per day. She'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion for 60 days and $150 per day. And seconded is is everybody okay with the number of days and the $1.00. Yeah, I don't know. I just don't have, you know, with several cases that have come in front of us today, it's hard to get a feel for this, the whole insurance process and everything. So just chose 60 thinking if she needs more time, she can come back and ask for it. I'd appreciate that, especially if you hear the second. I'm sorry, ma'am, but we're okay. I'm sorry. Um, let's vote. A sec list? Yes. Bernie? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Ancha? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. No. OK. So we've given you 60 days. If you can't get the permit issued inside of 60 days, you'll get a letter to come to a special magistrate's hearing. Don't miss that meeting, attend the meeting, and explain it to the special magistrate, and you will probably get more time. Okay, okay? Good luck, and stay right there, because you've got the second case. Then we can hear about your fence. After six hours, I got the picture. Item 98, property owner, Onick, Suites, LLC, investigator, Joseph Bernori. I am Joseph Bernori, code's investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying and reference to item number 98, case 2419520, regarding the property located at 137 Northeast Lincoln Circle North. It was sworn in at this meeting. This property is a multifamily structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a code's follow-up case. Property was first inspected on November 8th, 2024. In a violation notice, sent to the owner with a compliance date of December 3rd, 2024. Property was last re-inspected on February 11th, 2025, and the following violation still exists. There's a small section of fence in the backyard that is broken. Several areas of the exterior wall have been damaged and are missing siding. Several areas of the Soffit and Fasha are in disrepair and are missing. Two of the supports on the left side of the porch are split cracking and or showing rat. Zero out of four violations have been corrected, since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall, sent certified mail, delivered by certified mail was posted at the violation address on February 11th, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County Fischal Records book 22029, page 1703. During the course of my investigation my last contact with the property owner prior to today was February 18th 2025 and the owner did not indicate when the violations would be corrected. The department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance. Additional relevant facts are the same that the owner did procure a property management company. I had some dealings with that agent until she decided that her company wasn't gonna represent this property. I would like to enter into evidence. It's exhibit number one, photographs, which were taken on February 11th, 2025, document zero, two, one, one, two, five, five, two12520, JCB, and photos numbers 1 to 7. A little bit of the soft that's missing. This is the front of the structure and you can see some of the extra wall and disrepair. Some more of the support structures on the porch that are splitting, rotted, Here Close up with that. of the exterior wall and socket issue. This is a very small section of fence that was in this area. I've been told that it is now repaired, so I need to get back and see that. More of the socket. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. More of the staff. More of the staff. More of the staff. More of the staff. More of the staff. More of the staff. More of the staff. More of the staff. More of the staff. More of the staff. More of the staff. More of the staff. More of the staff. All right, Amanda, I need you to say your name and your address again for the record, please. Nancy Zofali, 113th Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida, 33701. And you are the owner of Onyx Suites. Correct. Okay. So, tell us about this. Okay, so the siding definitely is the hurricane. I've had several obviously due to the hurricanes, there's several things that were happening. And having a contract to come out there and just look at that was not of interest to them. I did go through quite a few. I think I called 13 when I decided that breaking it down. First, I went to the property management because I was told that they can help with that. They deal with contractors all the time. They have a list of contractors that they primarily work with. That did not work out. So I decided to break it down myself and call citing companies to do citing, do our companies to do doors, fence companies to do fence, handyman to do whatever cleanup of the debris, landsca scapers to take away anything that we could possibly clean up out in the yard. So since then the panels are back in place. Backdoor has been fixed. The any debris has been taken away. I've contacted seven citing companies, all of which only one came out to give me an estimate. One company did say over the phone they don't do partial vinyl, so I am looking at a full vinyl replacement. And since then more vinyl has come off because once it unlocks, very easily come off. So my thing is I've been taking pieces of that panel as they come off for safety reasons away. I wanted to, which I have to talk to code on that, is have it possibly removed because if we have another, I think, a wind storm, it's going to be flying in the street. So I would prefer to get it removed while I'm still trying to procure a contractor that can take all the siding off and go from there. And again, I'm working with the public adjuster to get the estimates, to get them into the insurance company. Now, also, the scope of work does need to be done in some sort of order because you need to take the siding off for them to put in new custom doors because they have to reach the framing and completely reframe that doorway. In addition to that, the roof does need to be replaced as well. They found some damage on the roof from the hurricanes, even though that is not a code violation. The roof needs to go on before the siding goes on. I would like to get the siding taken off, so I don't have to worry about it flying down the street. And that's kind of hard to do because you either have to sign on to the company to do an entire vinyl replace and they don't want to come out and take it off and come back. So I'm working with that right now and the public adjusters helping me with that. And from a timing standpoint, the case that we just talked about is going to require permit. A lot of this work is going to require we're talking about the same permitting process though, right? Correct. Same permit. We'll do all the work. Okay, so deciding and the doors. I'll ask you a question. Doors will be separate. That kind of depends on the building department. Is this something that she could do all on the same permit or does she need separate ones? So this is within a flood hazard area, correct? Yeah, so anything that's storm-related, they're putting all under one permit, because they have to review it for the 49% rule and make sure the scope doesn't go over that. So yeah, they are doing it convincing into one permit. Okay. Because from the amount of time we just decided on a previous, if it's the same permit, then it's probably the same amount of time. And is this gonna be a problem for her to not having a GC? Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry, not having a one? It's a rental property. Oh, a general property. Yeah, you have to have a... She can't do it, sub and sub and sub. She's gonna have to get a general contractor. Correct. Okay. Let me explain what I just said. You had said before that you were gonna hire somebody to do the windows and hire somebody else to do the siding and you know, that all sounds great. But the building department, I'm virtually certain certain is going to require that you have a general contractor to oversee the repairs so along with your public adjuster you need to find a new best friend and a general contractor. Yeah that's been very difficult. I understand but it's the only way I think you're gonna get your permit because the permit has to be regardless Because of the storm it has to go on one what they want is somebody overseeing the reconstruction from the storm and that's what a general contractor would do Is that the is that where that requirement come from? It's the storm driven? No, no, no. That would be a requirement anytime because it's not a homestead property. A homeowner can only pull a permit. Because it's a rental property, yes. But the full scope of the repairs all needs to be rolled into one permit so they know everything's been addressed to take the property back to pre-storm conditions and does not exceed the 49%. Regardless of the storm, because it's a rental car, you have to have a job. Have to have an answer. Oversee all the. So regardless of the storm, regardless that it's too, so you can't have somebody go out there and do the siding and somebody to do the doors, which I can put into motion, I have to have a general contract, so I'm basically starting from scratch. I'm starting all over again at zero. Right, you would have to have, regardless, any permit that was pulled on that property, you would have to have a licensed contractor pull that permit. You could not do it as a homeowner permit and then sub out the trades. But I'm not looking to do it as a homeowner permit. I'm looking for the, you know, arm of you. So you want to have a separate siding contract and do that as well? Right, like Alpine Siding. And they are the ones that they can pull the permits because they are licensed to do that work. But I, and I've gotten quotes from two of the window and door people. So they're ready to go. and I just need six to twelve weeks for their production of that custom door. But at the same time, I've got to get siding companies, all of them which are licensed and able to pull the permit. Yeah, I mean, I would recommend you contacting the permitting department just to inquire about that. I know part of this too is making sure that the full scope of work it's covered under one permit that way. A roof permit doesn't just get issued and then other work happens that repairs the property that isn't properly permitted. So whether or not they would, based on the circumstances, break it up and allow you to do in separate stages that's going to be a decision that they have to make obviously it could be if they're able to put specific notes on you know the permitting system to know that this is just one stage there has to be other work that's done in order to address the damage from the storms that they could make that concession but you're going to have to discuss that with them so. But if you do go that route wouldn't you so if you hired if you hired someone to do deciding they're going to pull a permit to do siding then you're going to have to discuss that with them. But if you do go that route, so if you hired if you hired someone to do the siding, they're going to pull a permit to do siding, then you're going to hire somebody to do doors. They're going to have to pull a permit to do doors. Right. So you're going to be pulling multiple permits. That could slow things down. We're basically looking at two permits, though, because I think that I could pull the door permit first. the door company can pull that first because it's smaller, and then if it's an open permit, again, that's given me time to do the siding, to get somebody to do the siding. There's also the factor that, you know, that once the siding comes off, how long it's going to take for them to be able to put it on, because there's things when you take the siding off, you may discover other things. And I can't make their schedule. I understand all of the reasons you just described is why I think the city is interested in a general contractor managing all of this. Yeah. Well, it's going to take a lot, if I go general contractor, it's going to take a lot longer than 60 days. Because the first general contractor I got, he sold me September. You'll see me in September. He's so busy out on the beach is still till today. And I, you know, so I keep calling down that road. I'm not sure who I'm going to get. I have call contractors at times, but they're not in the DPP. They'll say, oh no, I'm contract on licensed. And then I check them out on Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and they're not there. So I'm doing what I can. It's just a real difficult situation because of the rules. 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 co-investigator not been corrected the board orders Onyx sweets LLC to correct the violations within and 90 have not been corrected. The board orders, Onyx, Suits, LLC, to correct the violations within 90 days or by May 27th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, so we have a motion in the second. Everybody okay with 90 days and $150 per day. Any discussion? Okay, let's vote. A sec less? Yes. Erning? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Hanchha? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. Okay, you've got 90 days on this one, ma'am. Again, watch out for the special magistrate letter if you don't make the 90. Okay, it's important because if you don't attend the meeting then you can accrue fines against the property. Okay, thank you. Uh-huh. Good luck. Next case, please. Item number 29, property owner, Avanti residential artistry, investigator Monique Wadley. Good afternoon, I am Monique Wadley, codes investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, and I'm testifying and referenced to item 29, case number 24, dash 7312. This is regarding property located at 1601 Central Avenue, and I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a multi-family structure and is occupied by tenants. This is a citizen complaint case. The property was first inspected on April 29, 2024, and a violation notice was sent to the owner with a compliance date of July 23, 2024. The property property was last re-inspected on February 14th and the following violation still exists. The art apartments was constructed and a certificate of occupancy approved for residential apartment use. A change of use application and approval is required to change the property use from apartment to hotel for transient accommodations. Zero out of one violation has been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first class mail. It was posted at City Hall. It was sent certified mail. It was hand delivered by myself to the leasing agent on February 14th, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in county official records, but 21837 page 0393. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the regional director Stella Stover was yesterday on February 25th, 2025. And she just indicated that the she hopes to get the this resolved as soon as possible. Additional relevant facts regarding this case is that there's multiple units that are being rented less than monthly term. And I would like to enter into evidence as exhibit one photographs which were taken on August 1, 2024, February 14, 2025, and February 25, 2025. This is just showing the elevation of the art apartment. I'm booking these are the multiple units that are being rented for less than monthly. And then I just have a couple of other, this is on Verbo for less than monthly. And this is on Verbo for less than monthly and this is on Airbnb. So they're on three different sites at this time and I would like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two and this concludes my presentation. Just to clarify Ms. Wadley, this has been going on since April. It was going on in April and at first I by the time we tried to locate it and find it until we were able to actually find enough evidence and get that correct it was. And then also we had three hearings that this, I think was either supposed to come in September, October. Oh, yes. Initially, obviously been then we didn't have our hearings because of the hurricanes. Because I'm curious as to why it's land development regulations. Yes, I was about to get to that. Short-term rental prohibited. Yes, so it's not going to be listed short-term rental prohibited because this is within the downtown zoning district. And so, short-term rentals are allowed within the downtown zoning district if you have the approval for it. So it's not like a single-family residence in a neighborhood where you would generally be looking at as a short-term rental. So the use could be approved, but they were issued the CO as an apartment complex, and now they are essentially operating some of the units for trains and accommodations at hotel use. Without the permission. Without the appropriate approvals. Yes. So what would they have to do? Would they have to go get a variance? So they would have to get a change of use. And I believe there was a recent proposal for a new development to have part apartments, part condos, part short-term rentals. So there is a process to potentially get it approved. But in this case, I believe most of these are rental units that have been rented to individuals or companies, and then they are now conducting those activities. So we understand the difficulty that the property owner may have with addressing this, but we've had situations in other apartment complexes downtown where they've addressed it through lease portions of their lease that they could not be sub-led or used for transit accommodations and that's how they've addressed it previously. If that's, you know, is it's either get approval or stop your tenants from doing it? So it's the tenants that are doing it, you think? All indications, I think that we know of at this point in time. Yes, I don't miss well, I don't know if you have any other. Oh, so. That explains why it took since April 2. What was the city's recommendation for days and fines? Well, I'm sorry. It was the department remains 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance. Thank you. All right, ma'am. Could you give us your name and address and relationship to Avanti, please? Yes. My name is Stella Stolper. My address is 9401 Swift Swift Creek Circle, Dover, Florida, 33527 and I'm the regional director. Okay, so what can you tell us about this situation? Absolutely. So, part of what Mr. Vaughn said was correct that it's not us operating these short-term rentals. It is certain tenants. The part of the reason why this is taken on or dragged out for so long is one when this complaint first came about. We were able to identify a corporate tenant in the building called Landing Living. And we found that they were advertising our units on short-term housing platforms. When we rent to corporate tenants, the premise is that they're gonna bring in corporate professionals relocating who are gonna be living in the apartment long-term. It is a violation of our lease to sublet the units on short-term housing platforms. And so when the violation first came about, we were able to identify that landing living was listing our units on short-term housing platforms. As a result, we did go ahead and come to an agreement to terminate their leases and we were honestly under the impression that this case was resolved. We were personally checking on short-term housing platforms to make sure that there were no listings and as you can understand on these short-term housing platforms the way that we can find our property is by searching their map coordinates. It's not like they tell you Go Rent Unit 226 at art. So it makes it a little bit challenging to identify the exact lease holder or tenant who's violating the lease. So right before the hurricane, I actually found on a Saturday, so over the weekend, I found more listings for art. And what we had discovered is that we had a very small corporate tenant called Skyline. And what they had been doing, which probably caused additional complaints to the inspector was they were only listing the units on the weekends when our office team was not working. I was not working. You know, I'd called Conan Forstman and said, hey, we got rid of landing living. Why is this still open? Well, the city's gonna continue checking. So these guys are smart. They know what they're doing. They have continued posting our units on Airbnb. We were able to identify that skyline not only has two units in our building, but there's two more in the name of one of their employees, and there's two more in another name of their employees. So we believe we're down to six apartments that are doing this after the storm. I personally confronted their representative and they did admit to listing those six units on short-term housing platforms and they were very bold about it and their response was that, well, in light of her, Kane Milton, the city of St. Pete is not enforcing Airbnb's right now. And at that point, our response was, well, you're still in violation of our lease. You can't continue doing this. And so we need possession. And we were able to come to an agreement with with skyline for the last six units that and basically inform them that now, you know, this has come to light. We know about it. And we will not be renewing your lease. We don't care what you do, you know, we're not renewing the lease, this behavior needs to stop. So they have two leases that are expiring this Friday and they're slated to turn in keys. There are two more leases that are expiring at the end of May and the final two leases are expiring at the end of June. Although they did agree to turn in possession of the units at the end of the leases, I will tell you our plan is that if we don't get keys for the first two units this Friday, we're gonna be engaging legal counsel to provide seven day notice to cure and move forward with eviction. So based on that, I am begging the board for 120 days through the end of June to get them out and get them off our property because we do not condone this behavior and it is in violation of our lease. Do you know are they still doing this? Yes they are doing they're openly doing it. So question if if you get fined does the fine get passed on to them as part of your lease agreement? Well, so we would bill it back to the ledger, but whether, you know, we would have to pay the fine rate to comply with the city, but whether we would ever see the money back from them, we don't know because they were very, they were very, for lack of a better term shady about this. So two of the apartments are in a corporate name. Two of the apartments are in an employee, and in their employees name, and the other two apartments are in that employee's brother's name. So- Theoretically the answer is yes. Then the next question is, aren't they in violations of their lease and why don't you just terminate it now? Because you're in violation of city rules, right? So as a board, we can't go, oh, OK, we're going to make an exception to somebody because you're in a bad situation, right? Because then that starts setting precedence. So just terminate their leases. So you got, you know. And that's the seven day notice. That's what you said, the 70 note. Right. That's where I was going if this Friday you don't get you if they don't come into compliance now why do you need 120 days you've got you can tell them we're terminating your lease right now because you're not compliance with take-through well so we even though they've admitted to being like a part of this practice and posting the units they They didn't specifically say what units. And so the two units in Skyline corporate name are expiring this Friday. Their remaining units are in personal names. And since I do not have any legitimate proof, showing that those particular units in the person's names are being listed. Those lease holders are of a protected class and if we go move forward with eviction and termination now without hard evidence that unit 626 and Mr. Jack Jones' name is on Airbnb. We could potentially be faced with a fair housing lawsuit In the city Okay Excuse me in the city helper with that do you have proof? I mean we have the Evidence I think the same evidence that she's probably found I believe it's within landlord landlord's right to provide notice that they're going to come to an inspection of the unit. They can compare what the interior of the unit looks like with the pictures that are provided on the listing websites. These aren't easy for us to bring forward either. That burden in this case is not on us. And that's on the property owners. And you know, my personal opinion in the cities position on this would be 120 months as far too long, just to allow the leases to expire. We've received numerous complaints from tenants within this building who are renting long term. And they did not rent an apartment in a hotel. Similar to just when we have the residential, single-family home. So the city would not support that extension of time. I believe there's alternatives for the property owner to address the issues with their tenants and expedite the process rather than letting them release the expires. When this is brought before us with a single family home with the same issue short-term rent, we give people five days to getting compliance. That's it. Look, you can legally put cameras in the hallway. I mean, there's things you can put in place to be able to sniff this out quickly in addition to stuff the city has. But you can have someone figure You can have someone try and rent the properties and find out what units they are. Have them go on to cover. Well, we know what units they are at this point. So. Herminate their least thing. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you've got a lot of suggestions going on right here. You can enter the unit so that you've got lots of ways to prove this out. Just going to take some work. It took us a lot of work to basically get you. He's good. All right, I'll read something if that's OK. Sure. Based upon the evidence presented this case, I move that the board issue, the following findings are fact and conclusions of law. The board finds that the violations of the St. Petersburg City Code stated by the Coz investigator of NAP in corrected. The board orders of anti-residential artistry, TI to correct the violations within 10 days, or by a date of March 8th, 2025, if this order is not complied with a fine of $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion on the second. We're 10 days and and 250 is everybody okay with that? No, and I'll tell you why. Okay. Under the law they have to get to seven day notices. So let's do 15 days. You have to wait and then do it again. So let's do 15. But here's my, so I'll do whatever you guys want, but this has been going on since May and if I was living in there, I mean I don't know five days I haven't really heard anything, but I would like to light a fire, but I'm one voice on the board. And that's the reason I'm saying that is because that's an impossibility for 10, that you have to have 14. So I would say 15 and then they have no excuse. And that's independent of whatever kind of lease these people have. Independence, that's doing. Yes, so for the board members, either way, that is the amount of time, that's the day that the fines start to accrue, right? So they would be able to come back at the March 25th hearing, which is enough time to provide those additional, the additional notices in the San Charles referencing and provide that update to the magistrate, but if they don't take that action, and you know, then that fine is starting at an earlier rate. I like the idea of having it less than the two because now fines are accruing. So they gotta get on it. Right. $250 a day fines are accruing. they got to get they got to get on it right $250 a day finds are accruing so I say we stick with the 10 days I was just providing the We have a lot of time to work. We have a lot of time to work. We have a lot of time to work. We have a lot of time to work. We have a lot of time to work. We have a lot of time to work. We have a lot of time to that. Okay. I'll go ahead and read. 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 made by the Coates Investigator have not been corrected. The board orders want to correct the violations within 15 days or by March 13th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of 250 days, she'll be imposed. Second. $250 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, so we have a motion in a second for 15 days at 250. Everybody okay with that? Let's go. A sec list. Yes. Rooting. Yes. Schneider. Yes. Ancho. Yes. Wait. No. Wilson. Yes. Okay, so you have 15 days, ma'am. You may have. I can ask a question. Will I get any formal documentation with? Absolutely, you will. Yep. She's right. Like Judge's thing. Any for the next one? They will mail it to your ma'am. They'll mail it. So 15 days. 15 days. OK. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. It's five days too long here. Item number 56, property owner Walter M. Gibson senior investigator Tucker Hodges. Is it the owner of the house? Yeah. Good afternoon, I'm Tucker Hodges, couldn't investigate it for the city of St. Petersburg. Testifying a reference to item 56, case 24-9693. Regarding property located at 2965, 32nd Avenue North, I was sworn in this meeting. Property is a single family structure. It's vacant. This is a secluded fixed case. Property is first in suspect on 6.524, and the violation of the Center of the Owners with the compliance date of 6.2824. Property is last re-inspected on 2.1-25 and the following violations still exist. The various areas of the fascia and softener and dyseperra. The pool located at the rear yard is not full, water is green and is not circulating. Various items of junk in the breeze stored on property including but not limited to grills. Lumber, furniture, canopies, chairs, plastic items. Zero out of three violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice appearing was sent first class mail, posted at City Hall, sent certified mail. I was posted at the violation address on 2725, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing Ownership was confirming county official records book 17289 page 0976 during the course of my investigation. I have not had any contact with the owner The department recommends 25 days and 150 dollars per day thereafter for noncomplianceiance. Like to enter an evidence, pictures taken on 221, 25. Document zero, two, two, one, two, five, six, nine, three, RTH. Front elevation shot, and see here where the soft fit has come down. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. There we go. fallen down. Backyard has some plastic furniture items, canopy that's torn up, items like that. More debris in the backyard. So I don't have a better shot to settle water, but the water is right here. That's the pool. Yeah, that's it. I'd like to enter this fact sheet in as evidence as the exhibit number two, and this concludes my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Hodges. Is anyone have questions for the city? I have one question. Was that a pool or a pond? It's a pool. It then ground pool and ground pool. Okay. Yeah, the tree tree came down in the hurricanes. Okay. Thank you. And you said the property was vacant. Yes, me. Okay. All right, sir. Could we get your name and address for the record please? I'm Walter Gibson, Jr. 466 zero. Marinerable of of Arts, Springvard Spring Hill, Florida 34609. Okay. Yeah, what's about this property? It's my dad's property and he's currently incarcerated and I'm just a messenger boy between him and what's going on pretty much. Now he does have a trial date April 10th, I believe. I know this has been going on for a while because they keep pushing back his trial date. Okay. Are you suggesting that if he were to get out he would take care of this or he's's gonna hire someone. That's what he keeps telling me. Between the tree dropping down, because like I said, I'm just a son. He plans on calling his insurance. He won't tell me who his insurance is, because I don't say I don't think he knows who his insurance is. Or if he even has it. What? I'm sorry? Or if he isn't, he'd been has it. Well the house isn't fully paid for so I know he's got to have insurance. Because it's purchased through a VA loan. There's, and there's no one else that could just start cleaning things up. I've done as much as I could, but as soon as I see that tree come down after the storm, I've just gotten completely discouraged because it's a massive tree. And I truthfully don't have the means to even do it myself. Like I said, I live in Spring Hill. It's not a very close commute from here to the Air Plus me working. Wow. Tough cases to me. Is that tree program? Is that something that could help with this? Potentially, I mean, there are eligibility requirements. I didn't see the photos, but we could take a look at it. And if we believe that they may be eligible, we could start that process. But the homeowner is incarcerated and he hasn't even been to trial yet and he's convicted, then it's even more time. That's a problem. We even worse, yeah. I don't know where to go with this. I don't either. But it sounds like... Well, do I? It sounds like you've been trying to ask him for information, yet he's not giving it to you. Would there anything we can do to help motivate him? Like, do you realize the consequences coming out of a session like this, then fines could be accruing and leans get placed on his property? Would that? My dad's 70 years old, and he's been this time. My dad's been in and out of correction facilities for say, but he's I don't I think he wants to use this as an excuse to try to hurry up his trial to get out. As I said, this has been going on for almost two years. His public defender waved his right to a speedy trial without him knowing. So now he's just stuck there until a court date. Like I said, this one has been the only one not pushed. Yeah. Who's paying the mortgage payments? Yes. He is, he is. He's got, I'm sorry. I'm from jail. Well, it's auto pay. So. I was gonna to say if it came in the mail, you would see who the insurance company put. But you think he'd be more cooperative if he knew he was getting fines on his house? I've tried to explain that to him, but like I said, he's not. 70 years old and delusional for saying no offense to anybody, but I mean somebody sitting in jail. I got you. Okay. Did I understand your father's a veteran? I'm sorry. Did I understand that his father is a veteran? Yeah. Is it possible to reach out there to their resources to see what they can do? Because they have personnel there that will help veterans that get incarcerated and other issues related to that. I mean, I can attempt you, but I don't know how much they're going to help to me. Nor I don't know anything for say. I mean, I appreciate the advice. This is a title too. Yeah. Does anybody go by that check the house to make sure somebody's not living in it? I typically drive by once a month, and then he has another friend who lives on 54th Ave. She'll drive by once or twice a week on her way home from work. OK. But he's my dad has had to deal with squatters previously when he wasn't incarcerated. And that was a whole dilemma in itself. You know, I'm sorry if I asked this already, if somebody did. You don't think he can afford to hire somebody to start cleaning a place up? I only asked that because it sounds like he's making mortgage payments, so he's got some resources. I don't know his finances to be honest with you. He's kind of like said a stubborn old guy, so he thinks he's gonna be able to do it or I don't know I can't say. Okay. Burns fell on him too. I'll read something. All right. Based upon the evidence present in this case, I made 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 Has stated by the Cozumvastky have not been corrected the board orders Walter M. Gibson senior to correct the violations within 90 days or by the date of May 27th 2025 This order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day shall be imposed. Wow, 150. That was the recommendation. Oh second. Is that his residence? I got this second. So we had his resident. Yeah, so Yeah, I think it's because it's vacant. I was just following with it vacant because he's in jail. Yeah It's vacant because he's in jail. Yeah, no, I know just So it's not vacant Yeah, there was no there's any active utilities at the property So that was the reason I mean we're treating it almost like another vacant like a vacant. Yeah, there are no utilities or to act It's discretion can change the fine amount to whatever they believe yeah did you say that there are no active utilities correct water no electricity correct since at least June of 2023 say that again there's no activity since at least June of 2023 I'm only able to see water sure water would be able from the electric service June of 2023 okay so it's been it's been that long? Yeah, like I said, he's been almost incarcerated for two years. I could pull out my phone and tell you when they booked them. Yeah. It's OK. Yeah, I didn't realize it. Oh, I didn't realize it had been vacant that long. That's all. Boy, I feel bad for the neighbors. OK, because we were going to take a vote. weighing his time, the neighbors. Okay, I guess we were going to take a vote. Weighing his time, the neighbors. And so I'm like, I just... I just see click fixed. Open the discussion and... Somebody's not happy. Yeah. Okay, let's vote this out and see where we are. A secluded. Yes. Running? Yes. Schneider? Yes. Hanchha? Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson? Yes. All right, sir. We voted to give you 90 days. I don't know how much good it's going to do yet. Try your best with your dad. Yeah. Well, I get something in... Well, something be melt for a say or... If you want a copy, you can reach out to your university and get your pass. All right. Thank you. Well, something to be melt for say or All right, thank you. Good luck man. There's anything you do help out because I know the neighbors are probably pretty ticked about it That would be very helpful All right. All right. Probably already heard. It's a surprise even came. Five days or 180 days. This has been the toughest day. This is President Cain. Five days or 180 days. This has been the toughest day. This has been around. Item number 67, property owner, K-Lash Union Incorporated Investigator, Anthony Rivers. I'm Anthony Rivers, close investigator for the city of St. Petersburg, testifying in reference to item number 67. Case number 24-8173 regarding property located at 2730, 13th Avenue South. That was one end at this meeting. This property is a vacant lot. It's a code's follow up case. The property was first inspected on May 8th of 2024. violation, noticed into the owner with the compliance status of July the 2nd of 2024. The property was last reinspected on February the 24th of 2025. And the following violations still exist. It was cited. This vacant lot was approved for community garden to include and allowing the shed and a deck to remain on site as part of a garden set on February the 6th of 24th as of May 8th of 2024 garden was not or had not been set up. The fence was in In this repair There was overgrown vegetation at that time. Large piles of outdoor storage. But since then, the overgrowth has been removed. The second violation that was cited was fence disrepair that surrounded the lot at that time. And so still zero out of two violations have been corrected since this case begin. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail and posted at City Hall sent certified mail as well as delivered by certified mail. It was also posted at the violation address on February the 10th of 2025. Ownership is confirmed in County official records book 227, page 2313. The department recommends 25 days and 150 dollars per day thereafter for noncompliance. As far as additional relevant facts regarding this case, a recent record check showed that the community garden permit was issued on the February 6 of of 2024. And with this type of permit or license, it expires every September 30th of each year. And so at this point in time, that permit has to be renewed. It is expired for the community garden. I would like to enter into evidence that this time is exhibit number one photographs which were taken on the 24th of February 2025. So this is the vacant land where you can see that you can observe that a lot of the fencing has been taken down but but there are still posts that are up or that remain. At this time, the overgrowth and outdoor storage has been removed. However, being that the permit has expired or the license for a community garden, it would not allow for this shed or for that decking. I spoke to the owner earlier today and she did mention that she would address the permit issue. She went down to the building department, however they close early on Wednesdays and so she's seeking to renew that permit so that she can keep the shed as well as the decking and she also says that she will take care of the remaining posts that are surrounding the property. I'd like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit number two and that concludes my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Rivers. Does anyone have questions for staff? I do. So she applied for the garden, community garden. It has since expired. But the community garden permit doesn't allow for the shed. Well, it will allow, as long as your license for it, from my understanding, it will allow for a shed to keep the tools and garden material inside and as well as that decking. Okay. It will allow for that. And speaking with the owner earlier today, she did mention that to the the east side of the garden near the rear she has made she has put in some seeds for some plants. It wasn't distinguishable by our photos, but her task now is to get that license renewed. Okay, thank you. Is there anything else? Yeah, look, I might be getting old here, but didn't we hear this case like last year? It seems strangely familiar. It does. It had a different one. Was it a different one? It was very similar. get to the very, very easy to get to the very, very easy to get to the very, very easy to get to the very, very easy to get to the very, very easy to get to the very, very easy to get to the very, very easy to get to the very easy to get to the very easy to get to the very easy to get to the very easy to get to the very easy to get to the very easy to name to the LLC that it is currently in. Right. Okay. So that's the reason. And then just some additional, you know, on a vacant lot, usually you can't have any improvements. You would't be able to sort of vehicles, you could not have the shed, you could not have any of those other things that exist on the lot right now. I believe that the property owner pursued the community garden in order to be able to maintain what was there. Based on the photographs, there's clearly no community garden that is operating out of that location. And now, currently, we have no, you know, the approval is no longer there. I'm trying to pull up the original approvals right now, but I believe that was also contingent on a permit being approved for the shed, a permit being approved for the decking that was there. And, you know, at this point in time, two years down the road, there is still no permits that have been approved for those. So I don't even know if at this stage, the attempt to extend the permit would be approved based on the history and the fact that they haven't done what was supposed to be done the first time. But, you know, again, it seems like that was utilized to try to kind of allow those things to stay, but then it never actually got established as a community garden. My opinion is not operating as a community garden at this point in time. Okay. Yeah. Great. Got it. Thank you. All right, ma'am. for you give us your name and address for the record and your relationship to K-Lash union incorporated? I my name is the sub-round and to get the property to maintain the garden I had to apply for a loan. Ma'am before you start we will need your home address. 2730, 13th Avenue South. Okay. 13th P.T. That's the address. You're, you don't live there. Nobody lives there. What is your home address? Oh, I live in Titusville. You live where? Titusville. Can you give us that address? Oh, 2308 South Hopkins have Titus will. And you give us that address? The address? Oh, two, three, zero, eight South Hopkins have. Titus will. And what is your relationship to Caliash union? So I had to get a hard, a loan, hard money loan. They would only loan to a business. Okay. And your relationship to this business is what? I am a sole corporate, like... So you own that corporate? Yeah, it's a sole for a partnership, but they call it sole car. Okay. So I have a loan on that property. I last year planted the M. We donated to the local veterans and this year I planted passion fruit and Toyota squash and The only thing I want to do is put them rain barrels. I am approved for one oh four feet because 12 feet easement up and down minus 128 is one-o-four so I want to get 34 rain barrels. Okay, ma'am, you can't do anything on that property and you're gonna have to take the shed down unless you get your community garden permit. I went to the zoning, they told me I was my community garden expires only September of this year. But I didn't realize. It expired September of last year. Because I went there last week. And they checked in. They told me it's valetil September. I went to the zoning department. And they told me I'm valetil September of this year. I don't need to renew. So this was a surprise because I didn't know. Well done. Let us check. Yeah, so it was issued February 6, 2024. Mr. Rivers indicated and that expired September 30th of 2024. I don't see any renewals. There's a $50 fee that's associated with this, and the only receipt from that is back in February of 24 when it was initially approved. And I went there Monday, and they told me, I don't need to renew. So maybe it was a misinformation. So I went there today, the way close by 12. Right. We can give you time to get back down there and take care of it. Do you have the $50 you need to renew the permit? Yeah, tonight I'm staying over here. So tomorrow morning, first thing I'm going to go fix it. He also told me I cannot do the rain barrel until we know exact number. Yeah, they'll approve. Right now, let's just get your permits straightened out. Anybody want to read something? Well, I had a question first. This permit can, I mean, typically permits take a long time. Is this something that happens rapidly, quickly? I mean, she goes down here tomorrow and pays $50. When is she gonna get a permit? This is more of, I would almost compare it to like a business fee. If a kid essentially. Yeah, not necessarily a permit. You do have to submit a site plan. And again, those are the things I'm still not able to find the original document. But, code, specifically understanding that we're allowing a use that normally wouldn't be approved on a vacant lot, there are certain stipulations to that. And for the most part, this lot has not been maintained per those conditions. They have not done what they needed to to get the permits for the deck and for the the shed that's there and Again, there was no indication to me from the photographs that you know they established the community garden per their site plan that there's any activity there That's associated with the community garden. So it was almost in my opinion based on what we've seen that Away to get around having a shed being placed on a vacant lot because she was not able to get approval for that previously. Okay, so I think what you're saying is what you said earlier, which was she may not get approved for the permit, even if she does go down there. Okay, I can't speak to what they're approval on. I gotta say if they look at the prior, you know, okay, but. And I had just a follow up question on that. And there's also violations for the fence and for the property itself. So is that going to all be addressed under? So if it gets approved for continued use as a garden, then you still have to get everything else resolved. Yeah. Right. So that even if she extends the community garden approval, it's still not in compliance with the requirements of that section of the code. Yes, take defense posts out and whatnot. Right. And then go continue with the permitting process to get the the shadow approved, the deck approved, because none of that has been completed at this point. And it's been over two years. Yes. Yes. I can, I'll try something. Based upon the evidence presented in the 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 are stated by the code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Calish Union, ink to correct the violations within 25 days or by March 23rd, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $150 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay. Do we have any discussion? I didn't write down the city's recommendation on the dollar amount so I just went. 25 and 150. Oh, okay. Got lucky. I think it's good. Any discussion? Last vote. A sec list? Yes. Erning? Yes. Nitor? Yes. Anjong? Yes. Wait. Yes neither yes, and John yes, wait yes Yes, all right, ma'am you have 25 days to get this done So would the permit be issued within 25 days You'll need to go down to the building department and take care of it Thank you Stay in touch with your codes investigator Mr. Rivers and let him know what your progress is. Item number 109, property owner, Everest Flagler, point LLC, investigator David Walker. Good afternoon. I am David Brock Walker, code is investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, Testifying Reference to Item 109, Case 2419263, regarding property located at 2540 Roy Hanna Drive South. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a commercial structure occupied by tenants. This is a code's follow-up case. The property was firstpected on November 5th, 2024, and a violation notice sent to the owner with a compliance date of December 2nd, 2024. The property was last re-inspected on February 21st, 2025, and the following violation still exists. porch overhangs, roofs and disrepair throughout the property, impacted building areas included but may not be limited to outside of units 302, 252, 258, 254, 216 and 218. Multiple roofs and disrepair throughout the property with missing shingles and other roof roofing portions Siding and portions of all missing on side of building 2350 Zero out of two violations have been corrected since this case began Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at city hall censorified mail was posted at the violation address on February 11, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to this hearing. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 22633 page 0545. During the course of my investigation, my last contact with the property manager was on February 19th 2025. The owner did the property manager did not indicate when the violation 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 one photographs which were taken on February 19th and February 21st documented CB February 2025 and photos number one through three. Okay we're up. The first one right here is you have disrepair right here on the porch overhang. See underneath. Right here you also have Tyvek that's showing because the shingles are missing. Right here we have a wide shot of just the roofs and disrepair. And then on the other side of the complex is the same thing with roof disrepair right up here. And then we have our siding that's missing right here. I'd like to enter this fact sheet into evidence as exhibit two. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. I see we have another case. Is that an interior case? No, it's an exterior also for something different. All right. Well, we'll deal with this one and then deal with the other ones. So all of this roofing work requires a permit, right? It is. Is one been issued of even applied for? No, I checked today. I didn't see any. Okay. Good afternoon, sir. Could we have your name address and relationship? Good afternoon. The LLC. Yes. I'm the property manager of Flagler Point. Uh-huh. And my name is Bar Manshwarov. And I live in 636, Wells Court, Clearwater, 33756. Okay. so what's the status on your roof repair? So the pictures you just saw were the temporary patches we put in the meantime, which is what the insurance told us to do. There is significant damage, as you saw, equaling in probably millions of dollars. We can't just afford to do it ourselves. We're waiting on insurance. We are running through, jumping through all the hoops they want us to go through. The meantime, what you saw is not the under-elainment. It's covers that were put there by a rougher to prevent water intrusion. As far as moving forward, what we need to do, we're currently working with our GC on master permit for all the buildings. We're probably looking at replacing the majority of the roofs in the property. It is a larger property, it's 416 units. We're talking about a lot of money here and we're applying for a master permit to do all the repairs needed to bring the property to How it was prior to the hurricane Okay, so how many buildings do you have at the property? If I'm correct, it's about 23 Okay, and then all of them sustain damage to some degree? Some do some don't but majority yes. I'm looking for an extension of 180 days if you'll allow it. At the end of the day my goal is to get it done as soon as possible. We're trying to get the drawings finalized that the city required from us Because we're applying for a master permit They want one permit for each building So we have currently the architect making all the correct drawings that are needed for each building So it can apply for one permit for everything. We're planning on getting that done as soon as possible As As soon as the drawings are done by the general contractor, we're going to get the notice of commencement sign and everything submitted to the city so we can do the roofs first. We're trying to do the roofs as soon as possible and everything else soon after. Obviously we do need help with the the insurance and any anytime you can allow us to get it all done would be great. So do you think there's any structural damage to any of the properties? It's just all roofing roof you know pretty straightforward roofing repairs as far as you know. Roofing, siding as far as I know. So the time we're talking about here is just to get the permits. You're 180 days, you think it can get the work done. So if you've already got an architect or an A&E working on drawings, when they're done, you're going to submit to the permits, right? So when those are issued, that's good, because everyone else who's come up here today in this situation is said, I can't submit to the permits until I get my insurance sorted out. But you guys are moving out in front of that, which is great. Yeah. That's good. So I don't know if you need 180 days though to get permits, because you're already, you're going down that path, which is a good thing. I'm not sure how long it would take that's the only thing because we're talking about so many different parts. It's not like it's a single family home with one roof. We're talking about so many different parts It's not like it's a single family home with one roof. We're talking about large permit with roof siding and whatever other things that are in there A&E person knows all that and they're working drawings for all that right? Yeah How would you hire them if you don't know if they didn't know what the damage is? So they already looked at all the damages. We obviously had the, we have a public adjuster on the case, helping us with the insurance. And then we also had the insurance of the property multiple times during inspections. We're currently working with the insurance to get some distribute of payments so we can start, you know, putting money towards all these things that are pretty costly. But we are dedicated to doing it as soon as possible. That's priority number one in our book. Well, like I said, it's good that you're moving out now. That's great. Mm-hmm. You're up, man. You're all this with me, huh? Okay. Chair. Just... No, that's great. Yep. All right, man. Re-watch. You're up, man. You're on this with me, huh? Okay. Chair, just for some additional information, we have received several tenant complaints related to this because of water intrusion that occurred. We also do have, I think, its two unsafe cases that are going to be, or one unsafe case that's going to be coming next month because the extent of the roof damage did cause ceilings to collapse within rental units. So this was just the first one that's being brought to you this month and the next month you'll have another case for the unsafe piece of it. So just one of that additional information for you all before you make your decision. Yeah, because I noticed that these two are not the only ones. Right. You want to three others just this month. Some of them are closed. I'm sure some of them are closed, but it's an indicator that there's widespread issues there. And I make a comment. Certainly, sir. Okay, the other, I'm assuming they're commenting on the ones that are already vacated. We let the people break their lease, vacate the unit. And again, we're waiting to receive money from the insurance so we can do all these repairs. Okay. So. All right. You just collect straight rent. There are no unit owners. No, it's multi-family rent. No special assessments. That's what I was thinking. No. Yeah. So if you guys relocated anybody that's been affected by the storms you just get a lot of them out of their lease and they got to go fend for themselves. We've been transferring people to units that are in good condition as much as we can and other people we just let them break their lease with no penalties and leave. Okay. Already. Oh, go. All right, there you go. 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 has stated by the code's investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Everest Flagler Point LLC to correct the violations within 90 days or by May 27th, 2025. If this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day, she'll be imposed. Second. Okay, we have a motion in the second for 90 days and $200 per day. Any discussion? That was too long. I think it's too long. But we can vote if you want. No, I can amend if that's the consensus. It is. Me too. 45 days. All right. I'll amend that to the board orders Everest Flagler point LLC to correct the violations within 45 days, or by the date of April 12, 2025, if this order is not complied with a fine of $200 per day shall be imposed second any discussion Seclas yes ruining yes Schneider yes and jaw. Yes wait. Yes Wilson. No Okay, so the board has voted to give you 45 days If you don't get your permit issued within 45 days, you will get a notice to come before a special magistrate. Talk to the magistrate and see if they'll give you some more time. Okay. Stay right there because our last case is you as well? Next case, please. Item 112, Property Honor Everett's Flagler Point LLC Investigator David Walker. Good afternoon. I'm David Walker, Code's Investigator for the City of St. Petersburg, testifying in reference to item 112, case number 24-20850. Starting property located at 2540 Roy Hanna Drive South. I was sworn in at this meeting. The property is a commercial structure and is occupied by tenants. The property was first inspected on December 4th, 2024. And a violation notice was sent to the owner with the compliance state of January 2nd, 2025. The property was last free inspected on February 19th, 2025, and a following violation still exists. Observe post-shoring done for second floor balcony at 6331 outside of Unit 183. No permit on file for post-shoring and then after the fact permit will be required. Zero out of one violations have been corrected since this case began. Notice of hearing was sent first class mail posted at City Hall delivered by certified mail was posted at the violation address on February 11th 2025. Ownership was confirmed in County official records book 22633 page 0545. During the course of my investigation my last contact with the property manager was on February 19th, 2025, and the owner of the property manager 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 one photographs which were taken on February 19th, 2025. So this is the showing that was observed. And the second picture is just a different angle from the other side, right there. I would like to enter this fact sheet into Evans as exhibit two. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for staff? Just a, was this code's follow up? Was this a code's follow up? Code's follow up, thanks. Is there somebody living upstairs and downstairs? Don't know. No. I can't answer that because I can't give you a first start. That's why. Okay. We're the posts secured. So I didn't see any hangers or any plates. Any plates, thank you. It looked like it's just free standing wood. They stuck it in there to keep it in place. Which is, because all you have to do is run into it then and they fall out. One of the pictures right there, you see some nails right there that might be holding up into plates, but like you said, I don't see the metal plates. Let me check the next one. Yeah, can you go to the previous picture? I want to see what the ground looks like. It's not like any strumping or anything. Yeah, it's not even tap-coned. No. From December as well. Yeah. There's a photo from a different angle. That's... ground looks like. Yeah, there's not it's not even tap con. No. From December as well. Yeah. That's a photo from a different angle that shows I don't see anything in it. They just took them. Eight, four, seven, three or that one. That wasn't an unsafe situation. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's safe. It looks like they just banged the fort. The fort is in there. We keep it. Something's wrong with that input. I know it's going on there. Interesting. Mm. OK. Thank you. OK. OK. So we will need your name, address, and relationship, again, please, sir. Bar Mancherov addresses 636 Wells Court, Clearwater, 33756, and I'm the property manager of Flagler Point. Okay. So tell us about this porch. So I saw it the first time I was talking about it was with him on the 19th. I just recently in the past two weeks took over this property. Used to manage a different property in Braydenton. I took over to be the manager on this property. And first time, I was going to discuss it with you on the 19th, as when this came to my attention, from what I was told, it was placed there because something was observed that the balcony or the post had some issues. So it was placed there to, in the meantime, until we get everything settled with insurance, so we can get all the money together and the permits together to fix that among everything else. So it's a temporary safety. It's a temporary safety. It's nothing permanent. Is there a living in it? I can check. I can check right now. 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. Even if it was done as a temporary safety measure, that has to be permitted. I just want to clear about this part. Yeah, understood. And the heck with the insurance stuff. Even if it was done as a temporary safety measure that has to be permitted. I just want to clear about this part. Yeah, understood. Yeah, really. So did you find out if there are occupants there? Let me check right now. That's not going to pass up permitting. The unit upstairs is occupied. The one downstairs. With the lovely view, the four by fours. 183. I'm unsure of what unit is the downstairs one. I have here is the balcony outside of 183. 183 I'm unsure of what unit is the downstairs one I Have here is the balcony outside of 183 183 is occupied 183 is the downstairs is the downstairs. Okay, got you so the one downstairs is occupied But you don't know about the upstairs. I'm not sure what number it is upstairs like I said It's 400 units. I just got started there. So I'm unsure of what number is the unit right above it. Thinking one of the pictures, I might have seen 184. Do you know who put those there? 184 is occupied as well. I'm unsure. Because my concern is, I could see if there's one post but somebody put three up right so it tells me there might be there's an issue there right what is it is it's structural into the wall is it at that corner right because normally they just put maybe two posts up or one but you've got three so anyways it's really concerned by that photo from a safety perspective. So I can be in direct communication with David to get him whatever information and needs about this situation. He permits on that I think as the city said you've got to get shoring permits and put temporary shoring up so ASAP. Yeah that's okay mean, I don't know. It's isn't it. I would corden that area off so nobody could go in there. That would mean. If it was a sorry, can I? I would corden off that area so no one could enter it either on the second floor or the first floor just to make sure that I'm not telling you to go do that. I'm saying if it were me, I would be concerned enough to take that area off so no one can go in there because the sliders on the balcony and on below. That's yellow tape, but that's just if it were me. Until I would be your best bet just a suggestion. Until I got permitted temporary shoring in there. But you don't want to wait for the hurricane money to do that, right? That's a very... Well, even if, I mean, a permit, the city does, a month familiar, the temporary shoring permitting process is it any quicker than the normal permitting process? It was something that was brought to our attention, like through the unsafe procedure. I would be able to notify the building official and they expedite those types of permits for temporary emergency repairs. Okay, so I'll quickly, could we get it done? Let's say if I submit it early next week. You would have to have engineered plans. Do you think you can have engineered plans by early next week? That's the chicken and the egg a little bit because we are currently in the midst of having engineered plans. But that's a permanent fix. This is a temporary shoring. Engineering. You're engineering. It's a community to us that they wanted to engineer plans. But that's a permanent fix. This is a temporary shoring. It's temporary. Engineering. Your engineering. To be fair, it's to us that they wanted engineer plans for all the buildings all at once. For the permanent fix. That's for your master permit. You're looking for an emergency permit to take care of that shoring where you have tenants living upstairs and downstairs. So for that specifically, you're I could probably get the drawing for that specific balcony. Correct. So they would have a very shoring situation. A licensed design professional has to evaluate that balcony and then near the postard to make sure that the loads are correct. So they aside from your master permit and the all-building permit, they would have to individually evaluate that balcony and submit plans for that. Okay I'll discuss it with my general contractor to get right on it. We have to give enough time. If you can give me a appropriate time to handle that I would be very excited. Okay. I'll read something. Depends on how long it would take the engineer. Yeah I I mean, in terms of like turning around an emergency permit, I've never seen it take more than a week when we, it's an unsafe. Once you get the drawings, very helpful. All right, based upon the evidence presented in this case, I'm aware 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 Coz investigator have not been corrected. The board orders Everest Flagler Point LLC to correct the violations within 25 days or by a date of March 23rd, 2025 if this order is not comply with a fine of $200 per day shall be imposed. Second. We have a motion and second. Any discussion? So we gave him 45 days on the roof. Yeah, this is more of a safety, my thinking was a safety. Based on what the city said, if he can be done on Monday, get it in, right, they can get it turned around in a week. He said they could turn around in a week, so if he can get the, it's just temporary, I mean, granted, it's official drawings, but it's for temporary shoring for a very small area. So you would think if he's got a general contractor on contract already with an A&E, he should be able to turn that around pretty quick. Sure. If the engineer evaluates it and doesn't find that it's unsafe and doesn't see that it's structurally deficient and provides us a report to the same, they could just apply for a permit for normal repairs. Sure. Ultimately, it's all hinges on what an structural engineer would, their evaluation of that balcony. Yeah, we've obviously jumped to that conclusion because somebody decided to put three posts under there that That it's gonna be come back unstable, but you're right. I mean if it comes back that it's not then they're good to go Any further discussion What's about a checklist? Yes Schneider yes, yes, yes, wait. Yes, Wilson. Yes Okay Schneider? Yes. Yes. Wait. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Okay. You got 25 days on this one. 45 and 25. Got it. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Are your structural people and your drawing people? Get busy. And heard. Yeah. Quite a few problems as you can. We have lean release We don't have any lean releases today, but we do need to stay for the reading okay? We have to vote to accept it got it So in the meantime if you need to use the comfort station I'm happy you're here. Sure. You're going to come. Good. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don Oh, two. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Yeah. There it is. and I mean based on this, it's... Yeah. That's right. I didn't either. Someone sitting here and going for the first time. Okay. Are you ready? I mean, we can have engineering. Okay. Item, I'm number one, Eras, Savariya, Erdzi. I'm Angela Roberts, Codes Inspection Supervisor for the City of St. Petersburg, Testifying and Reference Item number one, case number two, four, dash two, eight, seven, zero. Regarding property located at 7998, causeway Boulevardvard North and I was not sworn in at this meeting. I have a question. All right. Do you swear firm that the evidence you're about to give us the truth to hold trace and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. I don't remember the department would do this. 10 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance. fact sheet and evidence. Item number two has been removed. Item number three has been closed. Item number four is St. Pete Hauvazan Authority. Case number two, four dash two, zero, zero, six, three, regarding property located at five, zero, two, six, first, street, north. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. number 6, MCM landholding to LLC. Hays 2, 4-6, 4-4,2 regarding property located at 8510 13th Street North Department recommends 25 days in 150 dollars per day thereafter for noncompliance fact sheet and evidence. I do number seven Dante Alfredo Rodriguez. Case 24-9323 regarding property located at 1001 58th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days in $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. And remember 8 is being closed and number 9 delores M Hines. Case 24-10504 regarding property located at 2044 12th Street South. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day they offer for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. I remember 10 MBA design LLC. Hays 2-3-2670 regarding property located at 2-2-3-1 Lampa Rila Way South. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day they offer for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. I remember 11 and make do LLC. H. ASE 24-10598 regarding property located at 2402, M. Lake Court South, Department of Reckons 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. I don't remember 12 is being closed. I'm number 13, Adam Blizzard. ASE 24-8426 regarding property located at 150-0-Suffick Street, North. Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day. They're after for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. I'm number 14. It's been removed. I'm number 15. It's been closed. I'm number 16. It's been removed. I'm number 17. in Leslie Bender Routh. It's 2-4-1993. We're already property located at 3-2-00 sunset drive north. Department recommends 24. remain Ralph in Leslie Bender Ralph. It's 2-4-1993. We're already property located at 3-2-0-0 sunset drive north. Departure recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. At number 18 has been closed. At number 18 has been removed. At number 20 has been removed. At number 21, John W. Wing. It's 2-4-5817 regarding property located at 2416 50th Street North. Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. 22. Jody and John Gru. 824-10707 regarding property located at 529-835th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $100 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. 2nd number 23 has been closed and 24 has been closed and 26 and 27 has been closed. 30 faith home design LLC. 824-14396 regarding property located at 820 31st Street North. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. 31 doubt Wayne Homes. 2, 4, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6 for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. 33-34 Heather Martino Case 2-4-6231 regarding property located at 270-08th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. I don't know number 35 in Midtown, real estate, one FLP. Case 24-2590 regarding property located at 1450-1st Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. 9-36 has been removed, down to 38 has been removed, down to 39 has been removed, I remember 40, Mary and Lynch. Case 24-18106 regarding property located at 545, 18th Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. I'm number 41 and I'm number 42 and I'm number 43 has been closed and I'm number 44, REM properties for incorporated. Case 24-10706 regarding property located at 936, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street South. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance, expect sheet and evidence. I'm number 45, Aureum Properties 4 Incorporated. Case 24-10999 regarding property located at 922, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street South. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance, expect sheet and evidence. I'm number 46 been closed in R-47, Brio's fear ventures LLC. Case 24-829, regarding property located at 464918th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance, Fect Sheet and Evidence. I remember 54 Reed Blazer. Hase 24-9883 regarding property located at 2529 26th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. Item number 55 has been closed on number 57 Gold Bricks Group LLC. Case 24-9035 regarding property located at 2227 32nd Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for noncomplianceiance fact sheet and evidence. Item number 58 has been closed and number 59 westward properties incorporated. Case 24-8617 regarding property located at 2827-26th street north. Department recommends 25 days and 200 dollars per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. Item number 60 has been closed. Item number 62, item number 63, item number 64, item number 65, item 66, item 68 has been closed. Item number 70, SLP Florida LLC. Case 24-10108 regarding property located at 2935 Fremont Terrace South. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. Number 71 has been removed. Number 72 has been removed. Number 73 has been closed. Number 74 has been closed. Number 75 has been removed. Number 76 has been removed. Number 77 has been closed. Number 78 Courtney Marshall De Cosmo in Ray Bernado Petcho. Hays 24-6704 regarding property located at 4010 Indianapolis Street, Northeast. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 79 has been removed. Number 81 has been closed. Number 82 has been closed. Number 83 has been closed. Number 85 has been closed. Number 86 has been closed. Number 87 has been closed. Number 88 has been closed. Number 89 of Ridge Water Place Condo Association. Case 2-4-19763 regarding property located at 115-112th Avenue, Northeast. The Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 91 has been removed. Number 92 has been closed. Number 93 been removed, I remember 94's been closed, I remember 95 learned real estate holdings. Case 24-19465 regarding property located at 545-78th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. I remember 96 learned real estate holdings. Case 24-19467 regarding property located at 545 78th Avenue North. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. Item number 99 has been closed. I'm number 100 has been removed. I'm number 10101 has been removed. I'm number 102 has been removed. I'm number 103 has been removed. I'm number 104 Richard H. Whit. case 23- the three is removed and we're one zero four Richard H. Whit. Case two three dash one eight four nine nine regarding property located at five four seven seventy fifth Avenue North. Department recommends twenty five days and one hundred dollars per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. I remember one zero five has been closed. Number one zero six has been closed. Number one zero seven has been removed. Number one zero eight has been removed. Number one ten has been removed. Number one eleven has been removed. I remember one. Number one zero five has been closed. Number one zero six has been closed. Number one zero seven's removed. Number one zero eight's been removed. Number one ten has been removed. Number one eleven's been removed. Number one thirteen's been closed. Number one fourteen's been closed. Number one fifteen's been removed. I'm number one seventeen learned real estate holdings. Case two four dash one eight zero six five regarding property located at two six eight zero fifty fourth Avenue South. Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of 6.5 regarding property located at 2680 54th Avenue South. Department recommends five days and $250 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheeted evidence. I'm number 118, excuse me, I'm number 118, I'm number 120, learn real estate holdings. Case 24-195, 5.7 regarding property located at 2680 54th Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-complcompliance fact sheeted evidence. I remember 121 that learned real estate holdings. Case 24-19806 regarding property located at 2680 54th avenue south. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day there after for non-compliance fact sheeted evidence. I remember 122's been closed. Remember 123. Learn real estate holdings case 24-20139 regarding property located at 2680 54th Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day. They're after for noncompliance fact sheet and evidence. Remember 124 Marina walk LLC case 24-5865 regarding property located at 465134th Street. The Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheeted evidence. Number 125 has been closed. Number 126 has been closed. Number 127 has been closed. Number 128 has been closed. Number 131 has been closed. Number 132 has been closed. Number 133 has been closed. Number 134 has been closed. I remember 132's been closed. I remember 133's been closed. I remember 134, I remember it's been closed. I remember 135 has been removed. I remember 137's been closed. I remember 140's been removed. I remember 141's been removed. I remember 145 or enterprises of St. Petersburg. Case 22-10476 regarding property located at 4811, 21st Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day there after for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. I remember 146 is removed, I remember 147, Pacifica and Robe, LLC. Case 24-18108 regarding property located at 390138th Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance, FACC Sheet & Evidence, and number 148, Pacifica Emerald Bay, LLC. Case 24-19874 regarding property located at 3901, 38th Avenue South, Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance, FACC Sheet & Evidence. And number 149 has been closed and were 152, 52nd Avenue 505 LLC. Case 24-911 regarding property located at 4.629, 26th Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheeted evidence. Remember 155 has been removed and were once 56.ermine Meda, who's saying? Case 24-1373 regarding property located at 3.6, 3.0 and a half, 16th Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. I'm number 157, Pacifica and Robe, LLC. Case 24-7597 regarding property located at 390138th Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for noncompliance, fact sheet and evidence. Number 158 Pacifica M.O.B. LLC. Case 24-7858 regarding property located at 390138th Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact sheet and evidence. 10-159 Pacifica and Robe, LLC. Case 24-17465 regarding property located at 390138th Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days and $200 per day thereafter for non-compliance, fact and evidence. I remember 160 PO flips LLC. Case 24-10462, regarding property located at 385014th Avenue South. Department recommends 25 days and $150 per day thereafter for non-compliance fact sheet and evidence. And that concludes the reading. I need a little bit to the floor. I'm going to move to the floor. I'm going to move to the floor. I'm going to move to the floor. I'm going to move to the floor. I'm going to move to the floor. I'm going to move to the floor. I'm going to move to the floor. I'm going to move to the floor. I'm going to move to the floor. I'm going to move to the floor. I'll each case. Second. A secluded? Yes. Brenning? Yes. Schneider? Handshot? Yes. Wait? Yes. Wilson? Yes. Okay. And this concludes the temporary 25th and the last member will work here in question. And we will all work together. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the bathroom. you 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 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 the beach. Thank you.